Thank you for that, I've not played the game, I just happen to know the comic reference. As to the down-voters, congratulations you defended a bible reference on the Internet. Your God must be proud of you. [SEP] > As to the down-voters, congratulations you defended a bible reference on the Internet. Your God must be proud of you.  You must really not spend much time here on reddit. You do know this is a hotbed of atheists right? Khorib hit the nail on the head regarding the downvotes. For the record, I didn't bother downvoting you until you complained about downvotes. Doing so is a good way to shaft yourself if you care about such things. Perhaps a better way to go about it would have been graciously admitting your mistake and carrying on rather than being condescending and insulting about it? 
Sure buddy. He just up and decided to rape someone. If he didn't put on a condom, why did they continue to have sex with him? Could they not tell?  This is so ridiculous that it's sad. This is just a trumped up charge to lock him up because of the leaks.  Edit: forgot that r/politics is infested with CTR idiots pushing an agenda. Assange = bad [SEP] > Sure buddy. He just up and decided to rape someone.  That's usually how it happens. Rape is most often committed by people who don't feel what they are doing is rape.  > If he didn't put on a condom, why did they continue to have sex with him? Could they not tell?  You should probably try not to admit that you don't understand the cases before throwing your opinion around or calling people buddy in condescending tones.  One woman agreed to have sex with him if he used a condom. They had sex, because he agreed. Later, she woke up to him having sex with her without a condom. That's rape, because she didn't consent to unprotected sex. She actually made it very clear that she didn't.  The other woman said that the condom tore in the middle of sex, but he refused to stop.  By the way, you might want to research your lord and savior a little bit more, because he's a really creepy guy who had a habit of stalking chicks even before the rape charges.  > This is so ridiculous that it's sad.  I agree, but obviously for different reasons.  > This is just a trumped up charge to lock him up because of the leaks.  Right. Because if the CIA were going to try to get him arrested, they'd totally accuse him of not using a condom rape, instead of outright date rape, right?  > Edit: forgot that r/politics is infested with CTR idiots pushing an agenda. Assange = bad  It's not really an agenda. It's just the intelligent people have come to realize that Assange's Robin Hood routine is more about his personal ego than idealism.
because the people perpetrating war were not these victims of it. If it was mustard gas or chemicals? yes. If it's killing families or razing crops? yes.   Men aren't really raped as a war prize, or used as "relief" for soldiers. Not to say there aren't, of course, but the epidemic isn't there and while people fight for them to be recognized, it's other men that need to, and therein lies the problem. They only just began recognizing victims of this in Korea, China and Japan. Meanwhile, in the US, women soldiers who try to report being assaulted or harassed while on active duty aren't even taken seriously, and me bringing it up here on reddit will be shouted down..... and people wonder why it wasn't a priority until now. These are facts, they aren't my "feminist opinion", yet it will be treated as such, and that's part of the problem.  [SEP] There has been problems with rape before in militaries. It's not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.  There's a big wide world outside the US and just because female harassment in the US military is an issue now doesn't mean male and female rape hasn't been a real problem in other places before.  Specifically in my country when I served most of the stories I heard about rape involved a Sergeant Major buggering young privates in the 80/90's. He was eventually court martialed over it (found him in the back of the paper one morning as a footnote), no one took much interest in it. Somewhat understandable, I'd imagine the victims just wanted to get on with their lives.  He raped numerous young privates who were in no position of authority to do much about it. The young men he raped were nicknamed 'delboys' he was that well known, no idea why. EVERYONE in the forces seemed to know about it. He just became a cautionary tale I guess, didn't stick around long enough to find out how the fuck it managed to happen to be honest.  Secondly, people take allegations of rape seriously. Perhaps YOUR country in your anecdotal experience or cherry picked cases may not, but others do and have.  If you think rape is tantamount in value to just being a "war prize" or "relief" when it involves men, you're painfully fucking naive, sorry but you need to research the subject more is all I can say.   I'd strongly look at the psychology of rape in the prison system and gangland, in both the UK and the US. Then if you have some time left over, please check out the rape of young boys by the Catholic church and the absolute disgrace of those issues. Then of course you can look into other religious cults etc.  The reason most people tend to "shout down" feminist opinions is that they typically have to belittle other issues (usually male ones) so they can make their issue seem more important.  Feminists say "it's about equality for everyone" and say men need to be feminists too, yet you say stuff like;  >Not to say there aren't, of course, but the epidemic isn't there and while people fight for them to be recognized, it's other men that need to, and therein lies the problem.  Do you have any idea how condescending that sounds? In case you didn't notice a huge amount of good men fought and died for the human rights we have today. The relative utopia you live in now is by and large down to good men moving society forward one step at a time, kicking and screaming or not. There are of course a lot of men who are nothing short of barbaric, but by and large compared to say the dark ages we don't have it that bad I think.  I understand that you feel it's important to raise the issue female soldiers face in the US army, no problems with that at all.   Why though do you have to insinuate that rape isn't a problem for men and that men are a problem when it comes to fixing it? It just comes across as antagonistic. Feminists I feel would get so much more support if they didn't seem to have the message of "white men are the problem" at the core of what they're saying.  edit; ahh nice to see the downvote fairies have visited and provided some real discourse on the matter
I agree. Now is not the time for us to meekly remain quiet as a show of unity. Obama and the neoliberals are doing real fucking damage, and they need to be called out. If that is off-putting to you, then you're not paying enough attention. Wake the fuck up. [SEP] >Wake the fuck up.  Politically speaking, this sort of language can only work against you. It will divide and alienate the minds you presumably want to change.  However enlightened you may think you are, the fact is (again, just politically--this has nothing to do with right or wrong), Obama is enjoying very high approval ratings now, so your condescending rant just makes you look like a nut.
> we have to pay microtransactions on top of our initial buy  Oh shit someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy cosmetics!? You need to be calling the cops right now, dude. Seriously. I'm scared for your life. Let me know if you're okay. [SEP] > Oh shit someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy cosmetics!? You need to be calling the cops right now, dude. Seriously. I'm scared for your life. Let me know if you're okay.  Oh shit, someone has a different opinion from you on the internet so you need to be a condescending dick to them! We're both humans, let's not be mean to one another.   No. Nobody HAS to buy cosmetics. But it's an anti-consumer move to include microtransactions in games which there was an upfront cost. This is because the presence of microtransactions is meant to put a little bit of psychological pressure on the player to push them into buying it. Now that's part of the deal when you're playing a free-to-play game, but when you've already paid, you shouldn't be expected to fork over more cash, nor should you be subjected to that psychological push. And you can say, and companies do say, that "you don't have to buy them!" but it's a cop-out. Of course they want you to buy them, they want to make as much money as possible. Admittedly, Elite: Dangerous has implemented this in a mostly harmless way. But when it's taken to extreme, you get games like modern Call of Duty, which charge you a $60 entrance free and have tons of intrusive microtransactions, some of which even affect gameplay. It's a shitty business practice and I stand against it on principle, so I'm not happy that E:D does it!   Besides, the presence of microtransactions in premium games makes them worse.   Think back to the time before DLC. Customization options were just expected to be a part of many games, and having a robust customization system could be a really great addition to a game because it allows players self-expression and can encourage better role-playing, immersion, or emotional attachment.  Allowing us to earn and buy ship customization options with in game currency would legitimately make E:D a better game, if just for allowing more players a wider variety of customization options. One of the reasons people like this game is because we get to fly our spaceships. This would be enhanced if customization options did not exist beyond a paywall and could be earned in game. 
I can tell you are new to this but there is a reason the soft sciences and studies like this are laughed at in the hard sciences.   I'll take a large coffee while you are here.  [SEP] No no, I pointed out a lack of good reasoning on your part. You can't use one researcher to define an entire field -- it isn't as though social scientists foam at the mouth due to the Bogdanov Affair. Wardenblarg is correct -- it is more often a matter of bad science journalism and laziness on the part of readers than poor social science.  > I can tell you are new to this but there is a reason the soft sciences and studies like this are laughed at in the hard sciences.  As someone involved in one of the "harder" sciences (neurobiology), I am very aware of this sentiment. Although the sentiment is understandable, too much of it is a result of both 'hard' and 'soft' scientists not studying enough philosophy of science.  > I'll take a large coffee while you are here.  No need to be condescending. It's clear from your comments that you both have an agenda and a paucity of understanding about the relationship between the social and natural sciences.
If I offer you a beer, and you refuse because you only drink fancy shit, you're a jerk. If you said something like that to me I probably wouldn't invite you over anymore [SEP] > If I offer you a beer, and you refuse because you only drink fancy shit, you're a jerk.  That's ridiculous. Why do I have to drink something I don't like just because it's offered. If you respond in a condescending way and say that beer is beneath you a jerk but if you politely decline without making a big deal about it how is that in any way not acceptable.  This is what pisses me off about these discussions. People always seem to ignore that drink what you want is a two way street. I'm every bit as entitled to turn down a bud light as a lifelong bud light drinker is to turn down my DIPA or BBA stout.
> I do like to find and make note of instances of irony when I encounter them.  You must be fun at parties.  Lol again. It's more that I can't be bothered talking to you mate, you are still not getting it. You can keep replying with nonsense if you like, but I do not wish to be a part of whatever grumpiness you wish to heap upon yourself this fine day. [SEP] > Lol again. It's more that I can't be bothered talking to you mate, you are still not getting it.   not getting what?  I demonstrated why it's an instance of irony. it's not even a criticism of what you posted, just an observation.  you chose to take offense to it (or otherwise be bothered by that claim) and start arguing with me in a condescending way , all the while failing to demonstrate why it isn't a case of irony.  Now you're just backing out of the discussion while "loling" uncontrollably.  > You can keep replying with nonsense if you like  Nothing I wrote is "nonsense" - all of it are pretty sound arguments that explain why this post is an instance of irony.  > but I do not wish to be a part of whatever grumpiness you wish to heap upon yourself this fine day.  like i said, no grumpiness whatsoever: my claim that this post is ironic still stands, and has yet to be refuted.  Not that I see why anyone would even bother trying to refute that it's ironic - as you have --- but, I never say no when someone wishes to argue a point.
lmao, funny story. I was going to explain why I talked about before wow, but I assumed you were smart enough to understand. Sorry about that.  High-elves are part of the Alliance's faction identity since before wow. Which means before and during wow. They just didn't magically disappear from the lore on november 23 of 2004...  As of wow today, Pandaren and Elves are both, in both factions. By themselves as races, they don't have anything to do with faction identity. Only their subgroups do. You have the Huojin versus the Tushui, the Night Elves of Darnassus versus the Nightfallen and the Blood elves versus the High-elves.  So if I talked about the past, it's because it's relevant today. Blood Elves of Silver Moon are part of Horde's identity now, but as a race they are not, because they've always been High-elves in the alliance. I mean, where the hell do you think the Silver Covenant comes from? [SEP] >Blood Elves of Silver Moon are part of Horde's identity now, but as a race they are not  They are but they aren't? You're doing some real mental gymnastics to try and make yourself seem right. Being both wrong and condescending makes for a very bad character flaw and I hope you're able to rid yourself of it in the future.
>Your widespread stereotyping of subs frequented by thousands of people an hour is shocking.  You really can't see how /r/politics is biased in favor of Hillary and against Trump?  You really can't see how /r/TwoXChromosomes is in favor of women's issues and against men's issues?  >I am subbed to r/aww. Do I hate babies?   Do you comment and upvote on /r/aww, or just subscribe?  Because the comments that get upvotes are pro animals and the comments that get downvotes are pro babies.  Your argument is essentially "there are people who visit these subs but don't contribute in any way and they clearly don't conform to the hive mind."  That's a lofty assertion.  >It's bizarre that you think you're somehow the authority on so many people that you've never met.  What are you talking about? It's pure math.  Just a pattern of comments, upvotes, submissions, etc. that all conclusively point to a certain (and heavy) bias in the subs mentioned.  The concept of a hive mind is bizarre to you? You innocent little thing.  >And while I appreciate your attempting a more civil tone, frankly I don't care whether or not you respect me. I am 'playing nice' with bot because he deserves my respect.  If he did before, I wouldn't have had to intervene.  Learn from your mistakes and don't make them again. [SEP] >You really can't see how /r/politics is biased in favor of Hillary and against Trump?  I don't believe I said that.   >You really can't see how /r/TwoXChromosomes is in favor of women's issues and against men's issues?  ...that's the point? And not necessarily a bad thing. Do they have to discuss men's issues in any forum where women's issues are discussed? Come on now.   >The concept of a hive mind is bizarre to you? You innocent little thing.  You condescending little thing. You don't make a horrible point but you lose me when you try to claim black people Twitter is somehow vastly unintelligent or how you're the authority on what is and isnt an intelligent community from what's mostly just posts of memes with black people in them.   >If he did before, I wouldn't have had to intervene.  >Learn from your mistakes and don't make them again.  We would have had a very productive conversation with or without you. Don't flatter yourself.  
You must have missed my comment where I said each type would have to be requested individually AND have an artist volunteer to draw it. I don't see a huge number of people asking for what I'm asking nor do I see a whole lot of artists here. I don't imagine they will get a whole lot of submissions at once, any more than for the other stuff anyway.   Besides, are you saying that they should avoid religious headgear entirely just because it may cause "clutter"? Your excuse is clutter? Seriously? [SEP] > You must have missed my comment where I said each type would have to be requested individually AND have an artist volunteer to draw it.  There is no reason to take up a condescending tone in such an otherwise benign conversation.  Also, as ive said, It will open floodgates. There are a decent amount of people already requesting it now, but after one group gets up while another does not I think the demand will increase dramatically with calls for equality.
You can't compare hitscan in this game to hitscan in CS, you should know that. They are two very different games in their shooting, movement and TTK. If you can't grasp it I can give you a rundown:  In CS you need a lot lower time to kill someone than in tribes. A shitload even. The aiming is also mostly horizontal. You simply can't dismiss this. This means that for aiming to become actually hard, they've had to implement spread, but they've done this in a genius way - spread patterns. It's not random as in many other games, you can learn the pattern and control it.  In tribes we have movement and aiming vertically as well, and a higher TTK - this means you have to keep a constant track of your target. Spread is dumb here, it means you'll miss shots you should've hit and hit where you should've missed. ¨  Also, your post below in response to Lester is silly, did you read his post? You just skimmed it, right? Go read it again. [SEP] >spread patterns. It's not random as in many other games, you can learn the pattern and control it.  Spray patterns. I know about those. There's still an element of randomness to it. Unless of course, that box around the crosshair in the last link represents something entirely unrelated to aiming in GO.  >In tribes we have movement and aiming vertically as well  I know, I played the game for a year. If anything, the jetpacking and falling makes it easier to shoot dudes. Everyone floats so slowly. That and you don't have to worry about shooting someone in the arm or torso instead of the head and doing less damage. Nospread will just make that even easier.  And yeah, I know my response to Lester is silly, I took the 'nuggetchain' thing to mean Brute. Brute, nuggets, raid boss gag, etc. so I assumed the Nova Colt. It's 10 AM here, I've been up since 2 PM yesterday, so my reading comprehension isn't stellar. It's fucking adorable how you try to use it as an excuse to look down your nose at me, though. 2/10, take lessons from mstarr on how to be condescending.
>I think a men's center would include any issues people who are men happen to be having at the time that they want to discuss in a male-specific setting. Honestly, if it were limited to issues that aren't intersectional, you would probably end up with a SAWCSM center  I agree. I just don't think intersectionality should be the focus, since that excludes people who fit in or identify with normalized groups.  >and then there might be good reason to object to the use of limited University funds to create a space for a group that already has exclusive or near-exclusive access to a great number of privileged spaces.  This is the part I don't like. I don't agree that straight white males, as individuals, have a greater access to university functions or are better off in a university setting than their peers. What clubs or classes are there that only accept SAWCSMs? How does the fact that some SAWCSMs might be outgoing and socially involved help SAWCSMs who aren't? What is your point?  >Even without considering that objection, there are a lot of questions about whether (at college age) there would really be much to talk about that's male-specific and not intersectional and can't be discussed in traditional male-dominated spaces like, yeah, a sports bar or LAN party.  "There are a lot of questions whether there would really be much to talk about that's female-specifc and not intersectional and can't be discussed in traditional female-dominated spaces, like, yeah, a nail salon or a slumber party." Do you not see how your logic can be used both ways?  >The above two paragraphs are valid only if you accept that SAWCSM is a privileged class in most of America, at least at typical university student age. If you reject that, that's your right, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to dissect SRS perspectives on this particular issue if you reject male privilege entirely even where it concerns ONLY males who are also middle income or above, white, able-bodied, and cisgender.  I'm not rejecting SAWCSM as a privileged class, I'm rejecting SRS's erroneous and anti-intellectual usage of the ideas of class privilege. To my knowledge, their sole usefulness is as generalizations with which to examine society at large, and they're not supposed to be used to cast judgement on individuals or small groups of people (like a university class).  [SEP] Thanks for the thoughtful response. I suspect we differ on this too much to reach full agreement, but I'm happy to elaborate.  >I agree. I just don't think intersectionality should be the focus, since that excludes people who fit in or identify with normalized groups.  I can understand that perspective, and I agree that intersectionality shouldn't be the primary or sole focus; even men who are also members of disadvantaged classes, races, etc., may, as another poster mentioned, identify as male first and benefit from conversations with all men. However, as a feminist I recall stories about how early white feminists unfortunately tended to silence the voices of minority women and do the same ugly things ("Your idea sounds so much better when I rephrase it!") that they were experiencing in the 60s and 70s from men. I think it is important to heed, if not focus on intersectionality in a men's center environment, because as in many other movements throughout history, failing to acknowledge it can lead to marginalization of certain members of the group. A gay, low-income, disabled man who comes to a men's center thinking he finally has a place to discuss his male-specific issues would feel even more left out in the cold than before if he found he was condescended to and left out of the conversation by SAWCSM males.   >This is the part I don't like. I don't agree that straight white males, as individuals, have a greater access to university functions or are better off in a university setting than their peers.   I'd say that they generally enter a university setting with less to overcome in that setting than their peers, particularly in fields of study that are still wealthy white male dominated, like mechanical engineering. I might feel differently if this were a school specifically known for programs in, say, elementary education, a field where men are a significant minority often met with hostility. (Is it? I actually didn't research the university concerned here.)   >What clubs or classes are there that only accept SAWCSMs?   ONLY accept SAWCSMs? I would hope in this day and age, none. However, there are quite a few typical university activities where participation is dominated by SAWCSMs. I didn't have a typical university experience myself (two different non-traditional schools and one was primarily online), but I have heard from friends in more traditional uni programs that religious student organizations, non-female specific sports clubs, student government, and Greek living programs tend to be dominated by majority groups. Basically, and I understand you'll probably disagree with this, when young adults are on their own for the first time, the people accustomed to having privilege and a voice often dominate any organization that isn't specifically targeted to the disenfranchised/underprivileged. Whether that's wealthy white women in Minnesota or wealthy black men in South Carolina, the people whose adolescence involved a lot of community support and empowerment rather than systematic disenfranchisement have more willingness as young adults to jump forward and speak out.  >How does the fact that some SAWCSMs might be outgoing and socially involved help SAWCSMs who aren't?  Those who aren't probably need a space not dominated by those who are in order to bloom fully. An autism spectrum community center might be a better choice. (Not being condescending at all. One of my best friends, who I consider a sister, is on the spectrum and has genuinely opened my eyes to understanding how underserved that population is i terms of safe spaces to be social. Most autistic people aren't uninterested in friendship, they just are burdened with expectations of neurotypical people and overstimulus in typical college social situations, e.g. keggers.)  >"There are a lot of questions whether there would really be much to talk about that's female-specifc and not intersectional and can't be discussed in traditional female-dominated spaces, like, yeah, a nail salon or a slumber party." Do you not see how your logic can be used both ways?  The two are genuinely not equivalent, however. There are issues specific to being female at a college age that are not intersectional and can't really be discussed in spaces not intended for community-building. For instance, many more college-aged women than men have experienced childhood sexual assault. 100% more college-aged women than men are dealing with being pregnant, deciding whether or not to abort, or having had a past abortion. (And don't give me "well a college man's girlfriend could be pregnant." Yes, that's a legitimate issue. But there is no equivalency in scale between that and actually having a baby growing in your own body, honestly. If I could give men the ability to get pregnant, I gladly would, but evolution did not choose to offer that to human males.) 100% more college-aged women than men are dealing with young adulthood in a system in which 100% of presidents have been men, over 80% of Senators have always been men, the highest-paying jobs are dominated by men, and women who are outspoken politically are punished by sexual shaming and the man who does it is cheered even by liberals who supposedly stand with feminists.  >I'm not rejecting SAWCSM as a privileged class, I'm rejecting SRS's erroneous and anti-intellectual usage of the ideas of class privilege. To my knowledge, their sole usefulness is as generalizations with which to examine society at large, and they're not supposed to be used to cast judgement on individuals or small groups of people (like a university class).  In that area I think you're misunderstanding my intentions. I'm not a member of SRS, because they banned me for not considering a particular individual unworthy of my friendship for his Reddit persona. However, I hang around /r/antiSRS and try to take their side simply because SRS has the "ban if u post here" policy that prevents actual SRSers from explaining themselves here. I am probably wrong on the larger scale, but I can't help feeling that measured and thoughtful explanation of feminism can create an /r/antiSRS that isn't actually a r/mensrights-ish SRS equivalent, and instead lives up to the rules in the sidebar. I've talked with the mods about why I participate here and my concerns about the levels of circlejerking that have begun to happen; I won't speak for them, but I will say that I feel comfortable saying I'm a supportive non-SRS member who also understands how antiSRS feels about them.  I personally am not necessarily against this men's center; I don't know the small group we are judging. I am, however, opposed to the logic that opposing the men's center is wrong because if women get special services, men should, too. University student life funds are quite limited and should be used according to that campus's needs. I would have to see a lot more than what is public about this proposal to give an opinion on it. I object to the tone in this discussion that it is offensive of SRS to bring up that men are overall a privileged group, or at least SAWCSMs are, and that therefore it is worth questioning if a special service for that group is the most healthy use of funds.
Ummm, millionaire wife goes on a rant about how they contribute more in taxes, and her sacrifices. She is a failed D list actress who married a rich guy 20 years her senior a little over two months ago.  She doesn't contribute shit. He earns, she spends. He greatest accomplishment in life is marrying a rich guy.  [SEP] > She is a failed D list actress who married a rich guy 20 years her senior a little over two months ago. > She doesn't contribute shit. He earns, she spends. He greatest accomplishment in life is marrying a rich guy.  All true. But so is what Millionaire Wife said. She and her husband DO contribute more in taxes, and they work full-time in government service. Her response was condescending, but I don't have a problem with her getting pissed when Oregon Mom made fun of her out of the blue. 
 Sudafed is still Sudafed. It looks like the Sudafed brand sells cold medications that don't contain pseudoephedrine, but there are still multiple medications sold by the brand that contain pseudoephedrine. x  In Indiana, there are a bunch of laws restricting pseudoephedrine sale to abate meth produciton, but you do NOT need a prescription for it. x  maybe your confusion comes from the fact that it is stored behind the counter, despite being an over the counter medicine. The reason is just that pharmacists have to be sure to limit the ammout an individual can buy. [SEP]  >maybe your confusion comes  Did you intend to sound condescending there? Because I'm not really confused.
> You suggested a mod loader that was more restrictive. It has to be to make it "safer." You agreed that Squad would not support both loaders, which would lead to one being chosen over the other; which one would that be? You have agreed that the more restrictive loader wouldn't support all mods, kill off mods in the process. I don't see why killing off mods doesn't count as "breaking" things or is not "harmful." Or do they not count if you can say that mod installation has been dumbed down sufficiently.  What I've suggested, and into what it could be refined is a different thing. I've agreed that there is a chance, that Squad, if ever took this into consideration, MAY break mods. And I too don't want that. Also, I agree that what I said may be restrictive, that's why I asked for discussion and refinement. What I propose is simple, I've coded (Albeit generic) system that can handle it. Basically, in KSP this could work that 'protected' mods would be set up correctly, THEN 'old methods' could be applied. No flexibility lost. Would that mean another layer for modders to work on? Yes. Would this help a lot of new players? Most likely, yes. And this is the main purpose of everything I wrote here, is it viable? Would it help?   > You're working in part configs, but you understand the issues (what issues?) with plugins? Also, [citation needed] on CKAN fixing things. There was one mod, I can't really remember. It had very weak config patch in mm. I've fixed it, for myself only. I really don't keep a list of broken things ;) By CKAN 'fixing' things I meant dependency and conflict handling, as explained before.   > Every single scheme proposed does the same thing; sacrifice modders for the sake of users. What happens when you've pissed off the modders; who creates for the users then? A little, yes. Ferram, I respect what you did, I use your mod and I think it's amazing. But I can see, on the example of few my friends, even IT specialists, that they bounced off because of mods. They could fix it, but they had little time to spare. I've never pursued programmer path, but even with the projects I wrote, I understood, that I am not writing for myself, but for users. That's why I use apple as a example so many times, they get it right. It's frustrating for power users, but vast majority enjoy simplicity. And here's the catch. I want to marry these two things. Simple, 'walled' system AND power of the existing tools    I don't want to fight Ferram, I want to discuss a possibility of easing the use of mods which could be easily implemented by Squad. So don't take my words as an offense, because I am really grateful for your and other modders work. I never intended for yours work to be nulled. [SEP] > What I've suggested, and into what it could be refined is a different thing. I've agreed that there is a chance, that Squad, if ever took this into consideration, MAY break mods. And I too don't want that.  Welp, let me tell you what I've learned coding plugins: silly unrelated code changes break them all the time. Changing any bit of the mod loading will break them, guaranteed. No way around it.  > Also, I agree that what I said may be restrictive, that's why I asked for discussion and refinement. What I propose is simple, I've coded (Albeit generic) system that can handle it. Basically, in KSP this could work that 'protected' mods would be set up correctly, THEN 'old methods' could be applied. No flexibility lost.  As I mentioned, this only works if Squad maintains the old system and resolves the interaction between it and the new one. That's a lot of work for them to do for a system that many modders will not use, so it would make more sense for them to replace the old with the new if they were to implement it.  > Would that mean another layer for modders to work on? Yes. Would this help a lot of new players? Most likely, yes. And this is the main purpose of everything I wrote here, is it viable? Would it help?   It'll attempt to help a lot of users... but the problem is that the kind of users that "just expect things to work" aren't really willing to help themselves. And what about the ones that could learn, but don't because they've been dropped off into this mess? What about the first group of users that want to use a mod that only functions through the old method (if that still exists, even)? There are many questionable bits in just this alone.  >There was one mod, I can't really remember. It had very weak config patch in mm. I've fixed it, for myself only. I really don't keep a list of broken things ;)  I meant, "how do you know the specifics of any supposed issues in plugin development (not configs, not models, only pure C# code) and how to address them?" Plugins are one of the few places that conflicts are even conceivable, so I would hope that you had some experience making those before proposing solutions so you had an idea of the consequences.  > By CKAN 'fixing' things I meant dependency and conflict handling, as explained before.  Except dependency handling had really been solved before CKAN came on the scene and CKAN can't resolve most conflicts either; the best it can do is say, "nope, can't do this."  > A little, yes. Ferram, I respect what you did, I use your mod and I think it's amazing. But I can see, on the example of few my friends, even IT specialists, that they bounced off because of mods. They could fix it, but they had little time to spare. I've never pursued programmer path, but even with the projects I wrote, I understood, that I am not writing for myself, but for users.  You realize that this is not a compelling argument to someone like me, who mods for me and then uses my users as a testing, feedback, and guinea pig group, right? You're thinking I'm doing some altruistic kinda squishy touchy-feely crap, but in reality, I'm running a pure selfish trade: I produce a product for me, in return for bug reports and feedback, I provide users with access to it. In the end, it's not for them, it's for me.  > That's why I use apple as a example so many times, they get it right. It's frustrating for power users, but vast majority enjoy simplicity. And here's the catch. I want to marry these two things. Simple, 'walled' system AND power of the existing tools   He says to the guy that can't stand Apple for exactly that reason. I hate when designers condescend to me like that.  > I don't want to fight Ferram, I want to discuss a possibility of easing the use of mods which could be easily implemented by Squad.  Nothing can be easily implemented. A load system like that isn't gonna be easy at all, especially if it maintains the existing system on the side and tries to figure how those will interact. And ultimately, if it's easier, it's gonna involve restrictions, hell, CKAN already has implicit restrictions that it does not enforce but assumes to keep things working, and the more you try to ease things, the more restrictions it adds. If the old system is replaced with this, mods die. If the old system isn't replaced, this doesn't help anyone who wants to use a mod that runs on the old system. And due to the restrictions, there's no reason to run on the new system at all, especially because even if you don't use the old system features now, You Might Need It Later.  > So don't take my words as an offense, because I am really grateful for your and other modders work. I never intended for yours work to be nulled.  You mean well, but I think your suggestions actually will be harmful. At best, it's a system that no one uses and Squad basically wasted time implementing it. At worst, well, who knows how many mods get killed by some kind of safe compartmentalization scheme. I'm 99% sure this would kill Realism Overhaul if that system was implemented, and that's just the config changing across all the mods. I don't even know what happens for each dependency itself.
>sexists rarely believe they're sexist  Ok, yeah, while this may be true it's still a faulty comparison. The entire feminist movement isn't down for misandry — like any movement, there are some extremists and to imply that those people are the "average" "feminist" is not only damaging to the feminist movement but also an act of bad faith.   Also Animal Farm is not a good example of anything considering it's prose and like.... not fact [SEP] >>sexists rarely believe they're sexist  > Ok, yeah, while this may be true it's still a faulty comparison.   First correction; it's not a comparison. I'm saying feminists can be sexist whether they know they are or not.  >The entire feminist movement isn't down for misandry  It doesn't matter if that's what they're "down for" if it's what they're doing anyway.  >— like any movement, there are some extremists   One feminist said a man defending himself against a woman trying to kill him was an abuser. That feminist was Anita Sarkeesian. Another feminist said forcing a man to penetrate a woman shouldn't count as rape. That was Mary Koss, of the "1 in 4 women will be raped" study. There's lists of these sort of quotes. Long, long lists.   Are you going to tell me "mansplaining" is an extremist feminist term? I'm seeing that nonsense in CW dramas.  >and to imply that those people are the "average" "feminist"  Allow me to stop implying, then; feminism, as a movement, is fundamentally gynocentric, misandric, and sexist toward men and women. Including most of the feminists who think they aren't.  > is not only damaging to the feminist movement   What are you trying to do? If I think the feminist movement is critically flawed, then damaging it is exactly what I want to do.   >but also an act of bad faith.  I'm not malicious, I'm not trying to deceive anyone, I sincerely see feminism as a problem that needs to be fixed, at best.  >Also Animal Farm is not a good example of anything considering it's prose and like.... not fact  Animal Farm is based on the Russian Revolution and rise of the Soviet Regime. It's...not exactly subtle. And one of the fundamental lessons of the book involves characters who had good intentions while they were actually propping up Napoleon's (IE Stalin's) tyranny.   It's not exactly a new character archetype. The Greeks used it. There's a saying about the road to hell.
> I have no idea what your definition of weak or strong AI is so this is incredibly difficult to follow.  These are standard terms in the field you say you intend to get a MSc in. They have their own Wikipedia pages. These are the first results on Google for "weak AI" and "strong AI":   http    http   > my question was clearly asking about the theoretical prospects  The theoretical properties of strong AI are not worth discussing without defining their implementation in a way that is computable. I was being completely serious when I said its provable that basic formal methods in strong AI, the sort that use provable algorithms where heuristics would do, exceed the computational capability of the entire universe for modest problem sizes even if only one Planck entropy was generated per operation.   I was also being completely serious when I said that arbitrarily large quantum computers run into the same limitations, despite (in the best circumstances having) exponential advantages over classical computers. Go look at the graph of exp(x)/Gamma(x) and see how soon combinatorial growth outpaces geometric growth. Evaluate x at 10, 100, and 1000. (to be clear, that ~10^-2100 represents how the advantage a (non-existant!) quantum computer gains you scales against the formal approach)  You are just playing at being a philosopher if you willfully ignore these problems and start fantasizing about what it would be like to solve AGI. You would literally need a Zeno machine to start solving these problems. The only way to get around this is to accept that you need to reason robustly about uncertainty, admitting that you might hold false/incomplete information, and once you start doing that it is not long before you start trying to optimize over a prior.   > developing the methods to match human ability  They can already outperform us. Have you ever balanced a power grid? They are better at classifying images than us now, too (kind of). Look at ImageNet and ILSVRC. There is also mounting evidence that they will be better able to drive better than us (under good enough conditions).   My point was that you dismissing something because it was of a limited domain is... insane. Physics isn't solved. We will both be dead before it is. We very well may never know what dark matter is. Worse, only a handful of exactly solvable problems exist in quantum mechanics; most of them do not have solutions but permit approximations. That hasn't stopped the transistor or the space program. If you were a physicist would you abandon experiment and work all your life (and let us be sure on this: fruitlessly) to build a new unified formulation of all of physics that was perfect and allowed everything to be solved explicitly?  > its fully reasonable for me to ask if we could develop systems with current methods that could for example learn linear algebra from a book.  Actually it is really naive. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of not only the state of AI research, but also the direction and purpose of the field as well as the methods in which this is carried out.   > literature  Modern Artificial Intelligence   Probabilistic Robotics   Computer Vision: Models Learning and Inference  Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications  Clever Algorithms: Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes  Pattern Recognition & Machine Learning  Andrew Ng's online Stanford class  G. Hinton's Coursera class  The FastSLAM paper & its follow ups  Again, you can find a university who will let you play around with Prolog and give you a degree. But I challenge you to understand that FastSLAM paper, and consider how big of a deal it was to factor that covariance matrix. The old approach "only" had polynomial scaling anyways and was already a series of statistical approximations...  The closest thing to what you are asking about going on in serious contemporary research is in simulation of a few thousand synapses at a time. (Surprise! It's all statistics.) [SEP] >>These are standard terms in the field you say you intend to get a MSc in. They have their own Wikipedia pages. These are the first results on Google for "weak AI" and "strong AI":  http   http   Thanks for being condescending as fuck even when I accepted your view, thanked you for your answer and asked for some followup to understand it better. If I asked for a book recommendation, consider that I am at least determined enough to have looked at a wikipedia page. The reason I questioned your definitions (Notice I said, "I have no idea what your definition is") is because as I said we appear to be at a misunderstanding between what I am asking and what you are replying.  So again, none of what you said even beings to address the question I was asking.  Nowhere in the last few posts was I even defending the prospects of developing strong AI or the feasibility of formal methods yet you seem like youre in a battle with a guy who authored "Why we should abandon current research and develop formal methods" . If you still haven't noticed, I thought what you said in the very first post made much sense, accepted that you know more than me, and got me curious to ask what I thought were good questions. Sorry they were "really naive". I mean I asked you to elaborate on the differences on formal methods and the current methods. That doesn't seem like "Hey thank man, I realize I don't know enough about this. Could you tell me a bit more since it looks you do?"  And I am not sure if you still get what I was asking or if your reading comprehension is blinded by your need to flaunt your knowledge, but all I was asking is essentially "What are the limitations in developing AI with the current methods?". Instead you gave me "Here's why what you were initially thinking is even more wrong than you imagined and why I am smarter than you"  >They can already outperform us. Have you ever balanced a power grid? They are better at classifying images than us now, too (kind of). Look at ImageNet and ILSVRC. There is also mounting evidence that they will be better able to drive better than us (under good enough conditions).  If they match (or even outperform) human ability, why do we not consider them strong AI? Going by the source of the definition you gave me (Wikipedia), "Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the intelligence of a (hypothetical) machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can.".   Do you see why your use of weak and strong AI is potentially confusing? I am not saying you're wrong, but you should at least be able to understand my confusion and where my questions are coming from rather than act like I declared war on you.  You also keep saying it matches or even exceed human ability. I give an example of a way in which it does not seem to do that currently (being able to do more general learning, such as learning linear algebra when it only knows its prerequisite maths) and ask if its still theoretically possible for it to do with the current methods. You could say "[No/yes], the reasons are complicated".  
I think you are too young and don't understand that those over 40 are generally very anti socialism. Those attacks of socialism on Obama...most people knew that wasn't true. It's like calling Trump 'hitler'. But Bernie is indeed a socialist and those attacks would stick.    And BTW, how can you think the attacks on Obama as a socialist didn't really hurt him? He had very low approval numbers throughout much of his 8 years....especially early on when he tried pushing obamacare and the 'socialist' label was sticking and working.  This is why I can stand taking poltics on Reddit...you guys are very uninformed and try to push a narrative rather than talk about actual facts  [SEP] >generally very anti socialism  Trust me, I get it. You don't have to be condescending to make your point.  >But Bernie is indeed a socialist and those attacks would stick.  He's about as socialist as the SPD is (i.e.; not really). He calls himself a socialist, but that's about the only thing really socialist about him. But more importantly, my point is that it doesn't matter. If he actually were a socialist, he probably would still win this election.  >He had very low approval numbers  And he still got elected. Does it really matter otherwise?  >try to push a narrative  What narrative am I trying to push other than "I think people are overestimating Trump's ability to win against a brick?" That's not a narrative; that's just my opinion, and it's one shared by an awful lot of people far more qualified than me.
In academia that line is blurred all the time, and engineers and scientists freely cross back and forth as the development of new tools requires fundamental knowledge we don't yet have, or as difficult fundamental questions require new tools to answer. Your condescension about so-called "engineering departments" where so-called "engineers" actually do science is amusing, though.  It feels as though you haven't spent much time in academic science labs, and no time in academic engineering labs. [SEP] >In academia that line is blurred all the time, and engineers and scientists freely cross back and forth as the development of new tools requires fundamental knowledge we don't yet have, or as difficult fundamental questions require new tools to answer.   You have just acknowledged yourself that fundamentally the questions that scientists and engineers try to answer are completely different in intent. There is cross-over but the knowledge that is garnered and published is fundamentally different. A scientist may need to develop a tool for an experiment, but that is just a hurdle to get to the scientific knowledge, the true aim for the scientist.  >Your condescension  I certainly don't mean to be condescending towards engineers, they provide an important service, but that doesn't mean they should be called scientists.
Is presented with facts  > yyy you're just emotional!   Whatever you say mate. Saying the same thing back to me doesn't change anything though little guy. Nowhere did I deny that Trump is comrade in chief. Too bad he didn't get as many votes as Hillary Clinton though. He'll always have that hanging over his head.  [SEP] >Is presented with facts  Is that what you call "facts"? Haha  >Saying the same thing back to me doesn't change anything though little guy.  Little guy? Lol you're trying so hard to be condescending because you're upset that it's cringeworthy.  >Too bad he didn't get as many votes as Hillary Clinton though. He'll always have that hanging over his head.   Yeah, I'm sure he'll consider vacating the Presidency because Hillary won a game that they weren't playing. The Patriots played against the Steelers in week 7 and the Patriots won the game, but who cares, the Steelers had more total yards!! I'm sure it's just tearing the Patriots up on the inside that they have that hanging over their head. /s
I even shy away from terms like น้อง because even though they're correct linguistically, they indicate position in a social hierarchy which foreigners are outside of. I still use the respectful terms for older individuals but usually just use people's names that are younger than me. I feel like am in an interesting and sometimes awkward position. I'm quarter Thai and have many family members here in Thailand that I interact with and don't always get all the nuances right like when and who to wai and how long/deep, etc... but it seems expected that I still try and explicit feedback isn't given when I do things right or wrong so I have to just by reactions and ask those I'm closer with later on about it. [SEP] > even though they're correct linguistically, they indicate position in a social hierarchy which foreigners are outside of  Exactly. As a foreigner, using "คุณ" (khun) is never inappropriate, although it might not always sound smooth. Other pronouns might occasionally be out of place, perhaps sound condescending (like "น้อง" in the wrong context), or even outright offensive (like "เมิง").   Personally, I'd rather come across as a bit stilted than overly confident with potential for awkward/inappropriate. 
> I think the concept can be gender neutral.  Maybe it can, but it isn't. It isn't used as a gender-neutral concept and I don't think it's a term worth salvaging.  > Friendzoning to me is the act of one person using another's one-sided feelings to their advantage.  But it's not how ~~you described it~~ it was described. ~~You described it~~ It was described as a woman abusing the feelings of a man.  > I think it started out with people confusing innocents with the first scenario, and now it has taken a life of its own.  Could you clarify? I'm not really sure what you mean.  Edit: Just saw that you are not the person I was originally replying to. Sorry. [SEP] > Maybe it can, but it isn't. It isn't used as a gender-neutral concept and I don't think it's a term worth salvaging.  Exactly how I feel about 'mansplaining'.
Even Wayne Chrebet had a better career than Josh McCown has, and he was a fan favorite who made some clutch catches (on some very good Jets teams for a while) his entire career. Not for 8 games during a 3-13 season. I get it, the tough scrappy underdog types are always great to root for. McCown was a top prospect that never panned out early, then eventually became a solid backup QB late in his career. I'm all for him being a fan favorite considering the alternatives, and having Manziel as his competition at QB made him an even more likable guy on a personal level this year. Saying he's your favorite brown ever is just odd though given how many great players and great guys have played for the franchise that helped us win far more meaningful games.  [SEP] >Saying he's your favorite brown ever is just odd though given how many great players and great guys have played for the franchise that helped us win far more meaningful games.   Not to harp on you, and I'll stop here, but this is the thing about favorite players... It's all subjective and based on forces that are different for each person. Some people like grit, some like flash, some like guys who can really heave it. But your earlier response to OP (and to an extent this one) was really condescending because it presupposes that somehow your judgement is better, when really it's an individual thing for each person.  Some people like fruity pebbles and some like grape nuts. It's all about individual taste. There is no wrong answer.
Here's the thing, your comment was "OP is responsible for the content".  No, they are not. They didn't write the article. They didn't write the title. The only thing they are responsible for is posting it on Reddit (which you've mentioned). It's not their fault you find it a shit article. They didn't force you to read anything. You blame OP for everything wrong with the article, which for some reason escapes me and many others in this thread.  As for digging through my post history (which, frankly I never understand why anyone does that kind of thing and is pretty creepy to be honest), some of those comments are down right illogical (let's tell women what they can and can't wear to free them from the religion which tells them what they can and can't wear!).  For my other comment, sorry but when you write something like "I don't want to go to war over stolen nuclear warheads" you deserve the harshest criticism. You decided to be an asshole right off the bat to me, when I didn't understand your logic. I decided to be an asshole right off the bat to someone who had the most flawed logic possible. [SEP] >Here's the thing, your comment was "OP is responsible for the content".  When you dishonestly pull my words out of context, you don't make your point any stronger. Instead, you just illustrate that you are aware that the entire strength of your argument is based on a dishonest and incomplete representation of what was actually going on.  >As for digging through my post history...  I literally clicked your name and read your first dozen response. That's hardly "digging..."  >(which, frankly I never understand why anyone does that kind of thing and is pretty creepy to be honest),  When you are a hypocrite, I'd expect that you would adopt standards that allow you to negatively judge people for doing things that make your hypocrisy clear.  That doesn't really mean your standard is reasonable though.  >...some of those comments are down right illogical (let's tell women what they can and can't wear to free them from the religion which tells them what they can and can't wear!).  Oh, I got it. Being a condescending asshole is ok so long as you think the situation warrants it. I'll be sure to check with you next time in advance.  >For my other comment, sorry but when you write something like "I don't want to go to war over stolen nuclear warheads" you deserve the harshest criticism.  Got it. Being an asshole is ok if you think the person deserves it. Totally reasonable standard.  >You decided to be an asshole right off the bat to me, when I didn't understand your logic. I decided to be an asshole right off the bat to someone who had the most flawed logic possible.  Let's walk through this together using an illustrative example.  Let's say you accidentally post a link to child porn.  You then get banned with a message from the moderator saying that, accident or not, you are responsible for the content of your links.  Would you really not understand what they were saying? Would you really think that they were taking the stance that you yourself is responsible for the actual creation of the pornographic picture? After all, they said you were responsible for the content so they must mean that they think you literally created it yourself, right?  Or would you take a much more reasonable approach and understand that, while they don't think you literally created the picture yourself, you can still be held responsible for the posts you choose to make, including what content your posts introduce to reddit.  Honestly, this distinction is so painfully obvious that it didn't occur to me that you could actually be stupid enough to not get it. As such, I assumed you were being painfully pendantic in an attempt to be an asshole.  If I was wrong here and gave you too much credit, then I apologize. Just let me know that I was wrong in thinking that you could understand things that were painfully obvious and I'll know that I should you assume you "are fucking retarded" (to use your words) going forward.  Of course, if you really "are fucking retarded," your own standards from your posts would suggest that I would then be warranted in acting like a condescending asshole to you...    
Your last criticism is one that needles me somewhat, because it's one that people kept using to try and call 'sexism!' during a time when the majority of comments she was getting were sexist abuse and harassment. Endless comments about how ugly she is, what a fucking bitch cunt she is, how she's an idiot for her views on sexism in gaming, how she should get back to the kitchen and make a sandwich, or she should get beaten, and that nobody would date her because she's ugly. People editing her Wikipedia page to add childish sexual comments about her. Then, the moment she explains she's been getting this sexist abuse, everyone immediately starts screaming as if they'd been writing insightful replies to her arguments.  And she definitely isn't as bad. This is not in any way like the general public throwing money at AADworkin, because Sarkeesian has no iffy and convoluted history. Her MO is open and clear to everyone who checks her YouTube page, everybody knew what they were getting when they donated, more videos of a similar style, and they will get that. [SEP] >Then, the moment she explains she's been getting this sexist abuse, everyone immediately starts screaming as if they'd been writing insightful replies to her arguments.  Being present for the Sarkeesian drama since around 2010, I can tell you that it definitely wasn't always as bad as it is now. There really were intelligent, thoughtful debates, but no opposing views were ever addressed, and any Youtube comments that disagreed with her in any way were modded away.  >Sarkeesian has no iffy and convoluted history. Her MO is open and clear to everyone who checks her YouTube page, everybody knew what they were getting when they donated, more videos of a similar style, and they will get that.  What they get from the page is that she's against badly written women in games, a problem which (almost) everyone agrees with. What most people don't know is the extent of what she thinks is "bad", going so far as to not only single out stereotypical or objectified characters, but anyone who comes off as not being feminine enough, or characters that are sexualized in any context. She also (very often) overreaches in her views, seeing problems where there are none. (And that isn't just me "mansplaining", she has often made assumptions that are the exact opposite of the writer's expressed intentions.)  I compared her to AADworkin because they both believe in righteous causes while being counterproductive to that cause. I held back on the description because Sarkeesian is just a bit biased and misunderstanding, while AADworkin is a homophobic e-thug that makes fun of rape victims and has a hard-on for insulting people with impunity.
> Messing with an election, or Cuban missile. According to you messing with an election is worse than the threat of nuclear missiles right off our shores.  Messing with our elections is infinitely worse. And it is a weird comparison: they are both bad, but one happened 55 years ago, this is happening now. Kind of a strange arguement  "Trump is still a citizen, not a turncoat" not mutually exclusive. If he colluded with the russians to overturn our elections, he is worse than a turncoat and needs to sent to prison.   "Who knows maybe his campaign did use foreign connections to cheat on the election. All politicians cheat it's just a question of how much and which of them get caught."  Collusion with the russians to undermine our democracy is the single biggest threat we have ever had. You do not meet with the Russians. You call the FBI  "Which of you would pay more for a movie if you could get one hacked by a Russian hacker."   That is stealing. I certainly never have stolen anything, on line or not. It is criminal . How old are you?   "He will never resign."  He will have no choice. I predict within the next 6 months he will be gone.  [SEP] > Messing with our elections is infinitely worse.  We're never going to agree. Hillary and Trump are the selections of the American people. Either would have been fine more or less. I know most people can't think past the hysteria of antiTrumpisms but he's on our side. Not Russia's.   > That is stealing. I certainly never have stolen anything, on line or not. It is criminal .  Not trying to single out any one individual but the prevalence of Napster demonstrates that a large percentage of people will steal stolen crap.  > How old are you?  Don't be condescending.  > I predict within the next 6 months he will be gone.  That's just what you wish. I predict four more years. He's got plenty of time to show that his decisions are making America a better place. And the liberal left is getting so annoying nobody likes them anymore. They sound like a bunch of whiners with sour grapes at this point.
Respectfully I don't think your comment addresses the issue at all. You seem to labor under the assumption that the data should be released just because it exists. I don't think that wise at all. As much as you might wish for parents to be understanding that the data is meaningless, many of them will not understand. This would put the jobs of teachers in jeopardy just because people don't understand the data and their administrators are unwilling to support them against the tirade of angry parents or reporters who don't know what they are talking about.   The only way the data should be released is with both teacher and student information redacted so overall trends can be seen, but no one person can be targeted.  [SEP] > You seem to labor under the assumption that the data should be released just because it exists.  As a general statement about government data, yes, I think it should be released just because it exists. I don't think government should be in the business of hiding information For Our Own Good.  > As much as you might wish for parents to be understanding that the data is meaningless, many of them will not understand.   In addition to being condescending, that argument is used regularly to hide corruption and incompetence. It's insufficient.  > The only way the data should be released is with both teacher and student information redacted so overall trends can be seen, but no one person can be targeted.   They already redact student PII.  Generally, I favor redacting employee PII. I don't in this case because of the specific, long-term interaction with individual teachers.  If I go in to get a driver's license, my interaction with individuals at the DMV is short-term. I bounce between a few windows, we share a hundred words, I'm out the door. Putting individual ratings up for each employee is unlikely to improve anything (though ratings for each office might).  With a teacher, this is someone working with my child for hours each day, maybe five days a week, almost 40 weeks a year. That's a huge commitment. That makes it a huge risk. Sure, the aggregate rating for a school is helpful, but it's less meaningful than whether or not my child's specific teacher is good. Once my child is in that class, what do I do if there's a problem? How do I help my child if she got the lemon teacher?  You worry about the teacher's job. I worry about my kid's education. Maybe that's our disagreement..
> No it was incredibly relevant. If you bring up one example of doxxing as if it implies that AMR are constantly breaking rules and false flags are expected, I naturally wonder if you apply the same logic to other communities you apparently object to. But you don't.  >> That's a really weird expectation. It's like it's not required to decry all doxxings in order to decry one doxxing.  > If you decry the doxxings of one group as if they completely invalidate the entire community and everything they stand for, I expect you to apply the same reasoning to other groups you apparently object to. But you don't. Don't you find that odd?  Look, I don't know what to say. You're all kinds of confused. You're attributing stuff to me that's coming from somewhere else (e.g. I've never even typed the words "false flag" in my life until just now, and I'm only vaguely familiar with the concept, but apparently you think I expect AMR to do that constantly). I feel like you're trying to slot me into a stereotype of yours.  I think this might be the time to end this conversation.  I think you've posted more reddit comments in the last few days as /u/StandWithLilith than I've ever posted on reddit over a year. Maybe take a break? [SEP] >I've never even typed the words "false flag" in my life until just now, and I'm only vaguely familiar with the concept, but apparently you think I expect AMR to do that constantly  So you just show up in the middle of threads and start your own conversation. Because that's what was being discussed before you showed up. Sorry I had you confused with someone else, your rhetoric is very similar.  >I think you've posted more reddit comments in the last few days as /u/StandWithLilith than I've ever posted on reddit over a year. Maybe take a break?  Thanks for the condescending advice. Really expresses how much of an asshole you aren't. Of course.  Bye bye. Hope you keep stirring shit and refusing to admit fault!  EDIT: Why'd you delete your comment?
Let me try to say this again. Not every woman out there is like you, so my original comment wasn't going to apply to you obviously. The fact that you guys have to automatically come in and spew out all this rage about your boyfriend is pretty hilarious to be honest.  "Don't forget to duck behind cover" when you die playing Mass Effect is not advice, that's someone reminding you of common sense. My advice to that would be to leave him for someone who doesn't think you're brain dead.  There's a difference between good advice and bad advice. You know what I would do for a woman who's never played Mass Effect before? Give them a basic run down of the controls and show them the things they can do for about the first 10 minutes of the game. Then they're on their own because a game like that is about learning. If someone tells you you should hide behind cover so you don't die while being 20 hours into the game, that's dumb on their part.  >If she likes it, great, but I think assuming that she needs everything explained to her like she's five is really patronizing. In fact it's literally infantilization.  So everyone who posts on /r/explainlikeimfive are babies and should be treated as such? I take something that can be extremely complex and very intricate and size it down in a much more manageable and accessible way. I don't understand why you're throwing out things like "infantilization" and saying that the way I ease someone into a game with a giant pile of information is essentially me being patronizing.  >They are getting frustrated with my inability to play perfectly, so they impatiently try to fix it  Again, another person that got instantly on the defensive because YOUR boyfriend lacks the tact to properly teach someone and be helpful.   So again, ladies, if you have a boyfriend that's being helpful and wants to include you in his game sessions, it means he cares about you. He wants you to spend time with him. He wants you to be successful at hobby that's supposed to be fun. [SEP] I wasn't talking about my real boyfriend. I simply constructed a hypothetical.  I'll try to explain why you're setting people off and receiving so many downvotes. Here's where it started to go wrong:  >To be fair, if he's giving you advice that means he wants you to be good the game and is willing to put forth the time and effort because he loves you more than anything in the world.  You came into this scenario assuming that the boyfriend's advice-giving was righteous and even self-sacrificing. You left no opening for the possibility that the boyfriend was actually out of line or insensitive, you just told the original commenter point-blank that she was unfair to be upset about receiving advice, because it was an expression of love and generosity on her boyfriend's part and how could she be upset about that? You were talking down to her in your quest to defend her boyfriend talking down to her. Off to a very bad start.  Then /u/critbot2 tries to tell you that you're missing the point, which is that offering unsolicited advice is easily insensitive and often patronizing, and you respond in a way that shows you have really missed the point:  >If he's giving you advice but you're clearly better than him as you say, then obviously the issue lies with him and he needs to realize he's the one that needs advice. Unfortunately most people don't realize that they're not the best at whatever they're playing.  Your attitude here was that if the other person doesn't know what they're talking about, they're wrong to give advice, but that if they are a competent advice-giver, then giving advice is appropriate. What we are trying to convey is that this is not the case. It is up to the person playing the game to decide if they want advice or not, period. Whether you know more than they do or not, giving people advice is still a presumptuous thing to do. Additionally, if they've asked you explicitly to stop doing it, it doesn't matter how much of a genius you are at StarCraft, you need to stop doing it.   But your response showed that you were still fixating on the relative quality of the advice as the salient factor rather than whether or not the player asked for advice.  A frustrated /u/critbot2 tries to clarify once again that the problem is boundaries, not quality of advice... and so you try to explain, again, that the way you give advice is awesome because your advice is high-quality:  >Okay. Look, there's something that your boyfriend is doing incorrectly. Statistically speaking I'm well above the average player in terms of skill in just about everything I play. As such, I like to give good advice and tips to help ease the pain of someone performing poorly.   You're good at games, you give good advice. We get it.  >I'm not going to let MY girlfriend play like shit because in most games, things are a team effort, and there's no reason that I or she should ask three (or however many) strangers to pick up her slack and carry her.   Here it's clear this isn't really about your girlfriend enjoying the game, it's about making sure she doesn't screw up the team. That's not an expression of love, that's covering your own ass.   >I'm sorry your boyfriend is a derp and is worse than you but doesn't think so, but you're way too defensive about something that is not what I'm talking about initially.  Now you're talking down to her about you missing the point multiple times in a row. Not winning you any friends.  >I love my girlfriend. She loves playing video games and especially with games with me. She until recently had almost no experience in mmos. I'm obviously going to explain everything like shes 5 and make it as easy as possible for her to pick things up and be independent.   So here you're trying to use anecdata to try to support your point that giving advice is an expression of love, something to be celebrated. But now that we're on the subject, why explain it to her like she's five? Why not explain it to her like she's her own age? MMOs can get technical at the highest levels, but do you need anything explained like you're five just to run around the newbie area and do a couple quests to get the hang of things? Not unless you're actually five. And actually, five-year-olds are perfectly capable of exploring the starting areas in WoW without much supervision, as long as they can, you know, read. If you are trying to get your girlfriend up to your level extremely quickly, sure, you have to explain things to her instead of letting her learn through experience, but what exactly about whatever MMO you play is so difficult that it merits being explained like she's five instead of twenty-five?   I called it infantilization because of the difference in the way you most likely learned and the way you expect her to be taught. Again, you probably didn't have someone holding your hand the whole way when you first tried an MMO. (For most of us it was Runescape, right?) A huge part of the draw of those games is exploring the world and mastering the interface. Running around playing catch-up to someone who always, always knows more than you is not most people's idea of fun.   >Congratulations, you're not like her. A lot of women aren't you though.  Here you're putting across the vibe that a woman who wants to take control of her own gaming experience is the exception rather than the rule. This line also foreshadows the assumption in your latest comment:  >So again, ladies, if you have a boyfriend that's being helpful and wants to include you in his game sessions, it means he cares about you. He wants you to spend time with him. He wants you to be successful at hobby that's supposed to be fun.  Wants to include you in his gaming sessions. He wants you to spend time with him doing his hobby. Because the boyfriend is usually the one who knows more, right? Which takes us right back to your original response to the girl who was playing StarCraft against her boyfriend. You just assumed that her boyfriend had to be in the right because he wanted to help her enjoy his hobby, because he loved her so much. And so somehow we went from "I don't like gaming with him because he always gives me advice I don't want" to "If he's giving you advice it must be because you're playing badly and probably a newbie who wouldn't be into gaming if it weren't for him." Holy sexist assumptions Batman!   This whole time you've been completely glossing over the fact that giving advice someone doesn't want and hasn't asked for is telling them what to do and that telling people what to do is rude unless you are actually their parent, teacher, or boss. You enjoy giving advice, you said, and you're unhappy that some girls in this thread don't seem particularly open to receiving it. But unfortunately for you, giving unsolicited advice is extremely presumptuous and has an inherently patronizing element. You put yourself in the position of advice-giver - patron - because you've unilaterally decided that the other person will benefit from your wisdom.   It should be up to the player to elect you as their patron, not up to you. That's all that matters. Not the quality of the advice or the knowledge level of the player receiving it - just whether or not you have any reason to think they want your advice. That's what the thread was about: men who ignore the fact that women don't actually want their advice. It wasn't about the fact that men give bad advice, although that adds insult to injury.  And boy, do men ever love assuming that women want their advice! (There's even a word for the phenomenon: mansplaining.) That's why people aren't thrilled about your comments. You've missed the point five times over, even wrapping up with even more patronizing unsolicited advice! 
It's my goddamn right to make fun of people who refuse to learn the basics, yet complain about crappy results, and I will continue to do so. [SEP] > It's my goddamn right to make fun of people who refuse to learn the basics, yet complain about crappy results, and I will continue to do so.  You have the right to, but that doesn't mean that doesn't make you an asshole. You're attacking a group that basically doesn't exist. I have seen maybe one or two people in the past few years that you called out for willfully ignoring information and complain about results. 99.99% of the time it's inexperienced people who simply don't know what they're doing wrong and do need someone to tell them.   They'll put forth the limits of their knowledge and skill, and are often wrong, and you could just as easily say something in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner and correct them so that they know, not fucking make fun of them like a prick. The condescending attitude only hurts the progress.  You're speaking from a position of years and years of experience and privilege, whereas you have no idea what people out there have gotten (and I don't just mean physical tools). Remember that.
>This is a question that's bothered me for a long time now. Even on the Republican side, nobody even comes close to the level of sheer vicious hatefulness as Reddit's group of Sanders supporters.  Really? Trump supporters go around calling people cucks, ffs.   >Or did we simply have the misfortune of attracting every brogressive, fratboy, Socialist-Until-Empolyment, hatemoner, liar and clueless rabble-rouser on the Internet?  I think it's time somebody looked into the mirror, because this is base hypocrisy.  [SEP] > I think it's time somebody looked into the mirror, because this is grade level hypocrisy.  Might as well get used to it, because after the guy loses, hordes of people from every other camp are going to unload all their frustration. Too much condescending Bernie shit for too long. 
> Your problem is that you are setting the criteria too high for your expectations i think. You either want absolute proof or you disqualify everything as blind faith.  > Keep an open mind, as the cliche goes , the truth maybe weirder than your wildest imagination. ;)  Hey, d'you think you could try to keep the condecension to a minimum? Because you're being seriously fucking insulting here.  No. I don't want "absolute proof", I. Want. EVIDENCE. Some feature of the universe that indicates that it might be a simulation. NOT speculation that "Well, simulations exist, so we could be a simulation". A feature of the universe that could indicate the reality of the hypothesis.  That's not a demand for "absolute proof". If you can't tell the difference between "evidence" and "absolute proof", then you have no business discussing either. [SEP] > Hey, d'you think you could try to keep the condecension to a minimum? Because you're being seriously fucking insulting here.  Its not meant as condescending, i just wanted to criticize a flaw in your approach to the issue.   >No. I don't want "absolute proof", I. Want. EVIDENCE. Some feature of the universe that indicates that it might be a simulation. NOT speculation that "Well, simulations exist, so we could be a simulation". A feature of the universe that could indicate the reality of the hypothesis.  This approach is wrong. I am not condescending.   Nobody is claiming that we know for a fact that its a simulation. Its a HYPOTHESIS . With your attitude any hypothesis must be considered as blind faith.   Unfortunately you cant see that and you cant take the criticism either so i will end this discussion here.   Take care , whatever you may believe in. :)  Bye.  
Those teams didn't have a technical partnership with Ferrari, the 2016 chassis will be very similar to the Ferrari. Not to mention they will get the second best engine on the grid, and support directly from the team. You have been living under a rock if you don't think it's possible haas scores points next year.   You probably though mclaren Honda was a good idea huh  [SEP] > Those teams didn't have a technical partnership with Ferrari, the 2016 chassis will be very similar to the Ferrari.   Marussia had a Technical partnership with Ferrari that included the engine and gearbox. They also had a technical partnership with McLaren for Aerodynamic development. Sounds awfully similar, doesn't it?  >Not to mention they will get the second best engine on the grid, and support directly from the team. You have been living under a rock if you don't think it's possible haas scores points next year.  I've been following the same news people here have. You're speculating the Ferrari partnership itself will be enough to guarantee a competitive package. Aero is the thing that kept both the Marussia as well as the Caterham from being competitive these past years, not their engines and unlikely their mechanics. They both enjoyed decent engines over the years, only aero kept them from being even remotely competitive.  > You probably though mclaren Honda was a good idea huh  No. The last engine supplier who joined F1 (Cosworth) produced a sub par engine. Honda, coupled to the fact they only had a single team testing their engines, seemed like a recipe for disaster - one mostly fueled by 80s nostalgia. I felt their hubris was similarly delusional because of the exact same reasoning; a bad track record for those attempting something similar.  You're being awfully condescending and assuming without thinking about what you're blurting out. Blind faith in intentions and words causes exactly the kind of hubris that kept plenty of teams and people form succeeding in F1.  Every single team or engine manufacturer that has joined in the past years has failed miserably so far. Manor/Marussia is essentially running a gp2 car in an F1 field. Cosworth, HRT and Caterham are gone. Honda has been an embarrassment.  But surely Haas will be competitive from the start. Because someone said so.
It isn't a brain drain, it's climate change.   Early Reddit was an environment friendly towards tech geeks who wanted something more indepth than slashdot or HN. As such, it attracted erudite geeks. Middle Reddit was an environment friendly towards thinkers and seekers who were looking for discussion beyond what was available on the archetypal PHPBBs, news outlet comment sections and, notably, Digg. As such, it attracted thinkers and seekers. Late Reddit is an environment friendly towards image macros and memes. As such, it attracts ineloquent teenagers.  Something Reddit did early on, under Alexis and Steve, was curate content. They very much seeded the site with the sorts of content they wished for it to have. Once the content took over for itself, they had a nice, successful little site that reflected their interests which they sold to Conde Nast. From that point forth they grew keenly disinterested in the site and established the current culture of "hands off at all costs." You will certainly get a robust ecosystem if you do this, but it might not be what you're looking for.  Australia had one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet prior to the arrival of Aborigines. Now it has dingos and kangaroos. New Zealand had an impossibly diverse ecosystem prior to the arrival of Europeans, who brought their cats. Kiwi can't compete with cats. The American Southeast is a great environment for Kudzu. The Pacific Northwest is a great environment for English Ivy. Etc. Etc. Etc.  The bottom line is that if you want an herb garden with diversity, you need to keep the mint from taking over. If you want an herb garden that takes care of itself, don't bother planting anything but mint because after a couple years it'll be the only thing left.  I'm still making the same comments I used to. The difference is nobody notices anymore. Reddit has gone from a place where people said "OMFG Paul Lutus!" to a place where nobody notices when the actor in question comments on the photo taken of him. All the people you mention could be in the conversation, mixing it up to the best of their abilities, and never even be able to connect with each other because everyone's busy saying "HURR DURR KURT RUSSELL". In other words, Reddit is no longer a place that facilitates commentary beyond the basest, most immediately accessible platitudes one can regurgitate. Even if you catch something you know extremely well early early in its post life, if you don't keep it under a sentence, make it universally acceptable, and directly appeal to the wants and needs of teenaged boys no one will even notice you said anything. Might as well save the effort of writing something up.  Go to /r/all. Set RES to block Imgur. Behold - you have eight posts on the front page. Six if you also block min.us and liveleak.com.  Caulerpa is beautiful unless you're a reef. [SEP] >Early Reddit was an environment friendly towards tech geeks who wanted something more indepth than slashdot or HN.   Not to be pedantic, but you are incorrect about the HN part. reddit predated HN by about 2 years. And I actually went more toward HN because it had (or it seemed to me at the time) some of the depth that reddit had bled away, although within a narrow domain.  I think it's noteworthy because this might back up the idea of "brain drain" or another factor that changed the community during the earliest period. The community then was also much smaller where such a change could be felt.  In general I think you have the right idea. Early on I was surprised that I could make an eloquent argument and have it change the course of the discussion. I tried agitating in favor of allowing subreddits and against voting up memepics.  I just made a long thoughtful post in a thread and all I got in response was a short comment asking a condescending smug rhetorical question, language that simply serves to shut down any discussion and makes me want to bash my head into any thing that will break it open.    
It's impossible to communicate just how innocuous "puto" is in mexican society. It's profane, yes, but it's not hateful, and over time its been reduced to a swiss army knife used to describe weather, express joy or disappointment, and something friends of both genders use to refer to each other. My gay brother and my gay best friend use it all the time, and just about anyone under 40 uses it as well.  In any case, outsiders will never understand and that's fine. If it were up to me, I'd change the word to something that doesn't carry so much negative weight in other cultures; instead say bobo, menso, or even just a random vowel. It's a simple fix, really, and would go a long way in bridging the gap between cultures. That said, don't interpret its usage as homphobic; if anything, and most mexicans would agree, it's crass and rude, and still needs to be addressed by the FA. [SEP] There is a whole series of grievances one can have with your reply. I'll summarize the important ones below:  1) There's this condescending dismissiveness that saturates every word of your reply. Your first sentence is illustrative of that. Of course, while \#notallmexicans use "puto" with hate (and good on those ignorant folks,) there are some who do. And that's all that needs to exist for your dismissiveness to be highly insulting to a victim class - whether its blacks, latinos, asians, women, gays, or another class.  Let's not even talk about your second paragraph about "outsiders" never understanding.\  (\ Because I'm an "outsider" who speaks Spanish and works for a dual-national company that has me working in Mexico 25% of the month, but let's not let that get in the way of your defense, right? (Note: A form of proof, in prep of my next point.))  I'm not going to pretend to be a cultural expert on Mexican society. And neither are you. Because neither of us are.  2) I cannot vouch that you have a gay brother - or a brother at all. What I can vouch for, as a gay man in Southern California, a state where whites are not the majority (look it up), is that I've had puto shouted at me by strangers on the street, and the only thing I was doing that was different from them was hold the hand of a same-sex date.  How would you explain that away as "innocuous?"  Oh. That's right. I'm an "outsider," and it's obvious to any Mexican I was being cheered on and witnessing the celebration of diversity!   >and over time its been reduced to a swiss army knife  There are a shit-ton of words and symbols that "over time" have taken on additional meanings and employments. That doesn't negate their other or original contexts.  At best, you're defending a homophobic double-entendre. But, really, you're just defending hate, even if you are ignorant to that fact.  All that needs to be said to taint the defense of this word is "here's a list of times this word was shouted in the commission of a hateful act." Does it really matter what else this word is used for at that point?  >and something friends of both genders use to refer to each other  Black people call each other "niggers." People sometimes refer to each other playfully as "bitches." But always in private company.  Both of those words are generally off-limits in public, unable to be used by anyone but the persecuted class in question, lest it be received as a form of hostility and hate.   >and just about anyone under 40 uses it as well.  It's like you're trying really hard to disqualify me and other gay men like me who take exception to this word. First with the unverified gay brother and now with the age thing. "Oh, his argument is mooted if I make the presumption that he's just not 'with it.'" This all plays into the condescending dismissiveness of your counterargument.  I'm gay. And 35. I've never in my life heard one gay man call another gay man a "puto" in anything but hate. (The same applies to "fag" or "faggot.") How the hell can you get away with generalizing and defending the use of this word?  >If it were up to me, I'd change the word to something that doesn't carry so much negative weight in other cultures  THAT'S WHAT MAKES YOUR DEFENSE SO INDEFENSIBLE! Oh, I totally recognize that you have suffered the weight of this word, one which you associate with hate, but I'm going to defend its continued use because... Why? Because hateful relics are a part of your "culture?"  >It's a simple fix, really, and would go a long way in bridging the gap between cultures.  It's an appalling thing to think that you regard this simply as some sort of gap between cultures. As if a word that has been used with hate is just one big chuckle-able misunderstanding. When a little gay boy is getting the living shit beat out of him by men shouting this word, it's, "OOoh, boy. Ha! This boy thinks this word is associated with this action! What a silly cultural mix-up!"  This isn't a "when do I bow/what fork do I use first"-type of situation.  It's grossly insulting to think that you regard it as such.
This is a psychology article?  This story doesn't actually have anything to do with Disney other than mentioning their characters. You'd want to direct your anger at the department store who ordered these creepy mannequins.  Disney sucks in much worse ways, like the way they train young girls that you aren't valuable unless you're a princess. [SEP] > Disney sucks in much worse ways, like the way they train young girls that you aren't valuable unless you're a princess.  Much worse actually. Young girls aren't valuable unless they have a prince.  I see where you're coming from though. I just had a baby daughter and I have been teaching myself not to call her "princess" because it's so goddamn condescending.
Whatever gets you to sleep mate, I am sure you are a really productive, albeit crying, member of society. You have proven nothing, anyone can post shit online, as you said. You have proven yourself wrong, now go back to being lazy. [SEP] > anyone can post shit online, as you said  Point me in the direction to when I said that if you aren't too busy joking about cancer.  > You have proven yourself wrong  When was this?  > now go back to being lazy.  No thanks, I'll leave that to you. You bitched in the first place about excuses and then that's all you gave me. If nothing that's said online matters, stop posting online. That's a no brainer. You can try to be condescending online, but you're stupid. That's why you do it. Nothing but worthless nonsense coming through your keyboard. Now go back to making cancer jokes, I'm sure your mom loves them.
you are making iteven worse. your life corcumstances suck and you literally blame it all on women and society. that‘s beyond pathetic. if you need a companion then get one, friends dont care about your looks, at least not where i and pretty much everyone else outside of thid sub come from. most of the guys gere are also stupidly hostile and will just bark at you it‘s a fucking waste. also they literally ssmit to being of average looks, some even above and still manage to blame their failure on women(average guys do get dates easily just look outside once in. awhile) this sub is truly pathetic, it is literal aids [SEP] >your life circumstances suck and you literally blame it all on women and society  Huh? I'm not an incel. I'm a girl. I've just spoken to plenty of incels, so when I saw you make an inaccurate claim, I corrected it. My life doesn't suck, and if it did, I wouldn't blame it on either men or my own gender, or society \(well, possibly society; I live in one that's toxic to the point that people will just walk past passed out or ill people on the sidewalk like they're not even there\).  >friends dont care about your looks  Mostly, and when I've encountered a friendless incel who wanted to make friends, I made friends with him. I'm not sure what your point is here, because we both agree that friends are good. The confusion is probably because you assumed that I'm an incel who "blames it on women and society," when that is not in fact the case.  >also they literally admit to being of average looks, some even above and still manage to blame their failure on women  Some of the users here have conditions like depression and autism \(but it's not limited to those two\). Most of the users have depression, actually, from what I can tell. People with such conditions tend not to be as socially successful as people without them. So, it's quite possible that average or above\-average men still wouldn't be able to form bonds with women \(or even with other men\), if they're hampered by depression or social anxiety. Is it women's fault that some men have these conditions? No. \(It's more like society's fault, for being individualistic to the point that many people are just allowed to "fall through the cracks" and become isolated. I'm not an incel, and yet I do believe that our society, as a whole, is callous and apathetic.\)  When people are repeatedly bullied and ostracized, they become depressed and sometimes even hostile, lashing out at anyone who seems to be insulting them \(from their perspective, and they've learned to expect insults\). Some incels lash out at women because they've been bullied or mocked by most of the women they've encountered. They see a threat looming \("this person is going to mock me or reject me; I'm not good enough for a relationship, and most people ignore or bully me, so this is probably just a prank \-\- they're lying so they can laugh at me later."\) I'm not claiming that it's good to automatically be suspicious or hostile, but I'm trying to explain why it happens.  >most of the guys here are also stupidly hostile and will just bark at you it‘s a fucking waste  It's not a "fucking waste" if you take the time to learn about them, and approach them with an open mind, compassion, and patience. Insulting them or being condescending or snide helps no one \(although it may give a snide person a brief rush\). Try talking to them the way you'd talk to a depressed person in real life. Be compassionate. Just because you're hidden behind a computer screen doesn't mean that your words won't hurt people.  I've extensively messaged incels, I've chatted with them online, I've done video chats, I text and call them. Most of them do not sound IRL the way they sound in their public comments online.  There are suicidal people here. \(As evidenced by OP.\) Is this how you would talk to a suicidal person in real life?  >this sub is truly pathetic  What's actually pathetic is making unwarranted assumptions about someone else's beliefs and attitudes just because you saw them post in Braincels. Plenty of non\-incels lurk and even post here. Critical thinking is a virtue.  >it is literal aids  And you're a literal troll. Begone until you learn empathy and patience.  Edited for formatting.
> What you think that people from Brussels wont care about Ireland or something?   Maybe maybe not, they certainly won't care about it as much as someone from Ireland.   > I literally do not understand this argument.  I guess your just too smart to understand a pleb like me  > There is no need to understand every Irish issue to deal with things like Roaming charges and freedom of movement.  Yeah sure I mean like, we'll make laws for people we don't know or understand or who didn't elect us because that makes sense.  Up next for Bulgaria's presidential election: a 24 year old Brazilian Janitor, a 37 year old Texan rancher and 63 year old Turkish kebab owner. [SEP] >I guess your just too smart to understand a pleb like me   No need to be condescending.   >Up next for Bulgaria's presidential election: a 24 year old Brazilian Janitor, a 37 year old Texan rancher and 63 year old Turkish kebab owner.   Im not saying just anybody will be adequate. But if they know their shit and are working towards improving the country who the hell cares what nationality they are. 
> I am losing the love of my life.  No, you're not. If she was really the love of your life she would not be acting as she is. Besides, you're only 19. You have no clue what those words even mean.  > I don't know what to do anymore.  Move on and be glad you didn't marry her. If you had, this stuff with her controlling, overbearing parents would only have been the tip of the iceberg.  Always remember the most important word in dating: "Next!" [SEP] >No, you're not. If she was really the love of your life she would not be acting as she is. Besides, you're only 19. You have no clue what those words even mean.  Way to win the condescending asshole award. You have no idea how he feels and what he knows, so shut up.   >Always remember the most important word in dating: "Next!"  Moving on isn't very easy when you're leaving the person you love.   0/10 - asshole without advice.
Immigrant is such an insanely broad term that to associate it with bigotry seems kinda hilarious. The hard work and commitment it takes to move your life from Australia to New Zealand, or Iran to the US, or wherever to wherever, is a big fucking deal. If using words to identify the people who do so is bigotry, then so is calling someone a doctor or an engineer and attaching further meaning to those classifications. [SEP] > Immigrant is such an insanely broad term that to associate it with bigotry seems kinda hilarious.  You don't get it. The praise for being one of those insanely focused, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, terrific immigrants is a condescending pat on the head. "Yeah, you're one of the good ones." It's like complimenting an asian kid because "asians are all good at math".  But as for the term immigrant being "insanely broad", this was a comment directed at a specific person who shared his back story. There's nothing "insanely broad" about that person and the response that was well meaning bigotry. You should have read the thread more carefully before jumping in to correct me.  Not that I expect you to get it now. Or ever.
By fucking, both parties are choosing the possibility of parenthood. Having an abortion, or delivering a baby, are both medical procedures with serious risks. There really isn't an even stevens equivalent when it comes to choice because the health risks aren't the same. If you're looking at conception as some type of zero sum gender game, you're probably not ready for sex. [SEP] > By fucking, both parties are choosing the possibility of parenthood.  It's 2017, this is untrue.   > Having an abortion, or delivering a baby, are both medical procedures with serious risks.   True.   > There really isn't an even stevens equivalent when it comes to choice because the health risks aren't the same.   True, which is why a man's finances are the closest thing. He has control over them. Much like she has control over her body. If she's going to have a child that he doesn't want, he should be legally able to withhold finances. Women should be able to have choice, but with that choice, they should be fully empowered to shoulder the responsibility alone.   > If you're looking at conception as some type of zero sum gender game, you're probably not ready for sex.  If you have to condescend, your argument is probably not very good. 
It is possible to care about more than one thing.  But there is also such a thing as protest fatigue. At what point do you start losing people's interest at overwhelming them with things to protest? When do you prioritize?  With all the daily evil going down with this administration, Whitewashing falls so low I cant count the fucks I give.  Aloha was bad and not really excusable. Iron Fist was manufactured bullshit protest. As was GitS too. The manga creator had no issues with the casting. So at that point, people should shut up.   [SEP] > The manga creator had no issues with the casting. So at that point, people should shut up.  Nah, I think people are still entitled to their opinion. Quentin Tarantino could come out and say Kill Bill was his best film. I could still argue for Inglourious Basterds.   > Whitewashing falls so low I cant count the fucks I give.  What's the whole thing people have with, "I don't care about something. So no one else can!" Look, I thought the role should have gone to an Asian actress since the movie was still taking place in Tokyo. I've had thoughtful discussions with people that thought otherwise. It's okay to talk about things. But the people on your side of the argument are just so up your own ass, you're writing off everyone against you as stupid, invalid, and that we need to shut up about it. News flash, that isn't a good way to get people to "shut up" about things. I've literally talked to maybe two people about these thing (on your side of the argument) that wasn't a condescending dick about it. 
>Worst-case scenario is the NBN goes massively over budget... and turns into a white elephant due to technological or economic changes.  Ah, a specific objection at last!   Budget concerns I will grant. It may cost more than currently forecast, it may cost less. Either way, the cost will ultimately be borne out in service pricing. That's more of an issue of implementation though, not an argument against the policy itself. And it's worth noting that same risk applies to any alternate proposal.  But the white elephant thing is clutching at straws. The demand for more fixed-line bandwidth is there now. It's a demand that has done nothing but grow since the telegraph was first invented, and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. The current copper and wireless infrastructures cannot meet that demand. Fibre can.  So discounting the idea that our economy doesn't need more bandwidth, now or in the future, all you're left with is the concern that some as-yet-unknown technology (not based around fibre optics) is going to come along and make fixed-line communications entirely redundant. And without being overly critical, I think that concern is almost more ridiculous.   Certainly it's not much help as a basis for making investment decisions. We can only make decisions based on what we know and can forecast, and all the information now is telling us that fibre is the answer. [SEP] >Ah, a specific objection at last!   The discussion so far has been at a level of generality. You certainly haven't given any specific reasons why the NBN is a good idea, for example.  > The demand for more fixed-line bandwidth is there now.  Demand is always in context. People's wants are infinite, the only question is - which ones do we satisfy? Obviously, the ones which do the most good. Absent any form of cost-benefit analysis, the cheerleading for the NBN is bizarre.  >The current copper and wireless infrastructures cannot meet that demand. Fibre can.  Again and again you ignore the cost half of the equation. Fibre is expensive. That's why it's currently the backbone of Australia's telecommunications network, but isn't used everywhere.  Think of it this way. The NBN is infrastructure, just like roads. But we don't want to build highways to the door of every house in the country, despite the massive benefits that could bring, because it's not worth it and we're better off spending the money elsewhere.  >all you're left with is the concern that some as-yet-unknown technology (not based around fibre optics) is going to come along and make fixed-line communications entirely redundant.  Try not to be condescending. You asked for a worst-case scenario, but I'm not basing my arguments on the worst-case scenario.   >We can only make decisions based on what we know and can forecast, and all the information now is telling us that fibre is the answer.  What information? The fact that most people at the moment don't think fibre is what they need, evidenced by the lack of people willing to put up the dosh to get it?  The truth is that the NBN is proceeding on a "build it and they will come" rationale, which is a terrible way to manage the incredibly vast resources in play. Why has there been no cost-benefit analysis?
> Using or not using a turn signal, passing with or without three feet, these things are decisions.  Yea, exactly. Humans make bad decisions sometimes. Because for whatever reason, they weren't thinking about the consequences of those actions.  So because he made the mistake (or poor decision) of being reckless with his vehicle, that makes his whole existence shit?  I used to go hunting a lot with my dad. The first (and last) time he saw me mishandle my gun(I was being lazy with it), he most definitely did not get in my face and scream at me and insult me. He grabbed the gun away from me and he was angry. But he kept a stern but level tone. He explained to me exactly how dangerous my fuck up was. He was stern and angry but calm and rational. He asked me if I knew how to avoid doing that again and I told him. He said yes and gave me more advice. Then handed the gun back to me and we continued on through the woods. I respected what he had to say and took him very seriously. If he had screamed at me, at 8 years old I probably would have just broke down into tears and it would not be a productive exchange. At 14 if he had screamed at me, I would have rolled my eyes thinking he was over reacting. But instead, 14 year old me actually listened because he removed the emotion from the situation. It was factual and logical. Now when he saw first turned and saw me he did shout "NO! What the fuck are you doing with that thing!" So he even expressed his outrage but then rolled it back so that we could have a meaningful conversation about a very serious offense.  Those times you have been corrected on shitty behavior, how did those people speak to you? [SEP] >So because he made the mistake (or poor decision) of being reckless with his vehicle, that makes his whole existence shit?  No, his attitude of disregard, communicated by rolling his eyes at me and telling me in a condescending tone of voice to "calm down," when I reminded him in an irritated but calm voice that he must give me 3 feet and a turn signal when he passes, indicates a weakness of character that makes him unfit to be an officer of the law.  It is his conscious, carefully considered choice to continue in that office despite his unacceptable lack of character that makes him a terrible person.  Your examples above don't work for this situation because, in those situations, you were a child. If you had been a grown-ass man who engaged in specific, high-level stress training with your weapon, who was being paid by your father to behave safely with your weapon, who swore a public oath to follow and obey the law with your weapon, who damn well knew what he was doing was dangerous and illegal and against his oath and still had the weakness of character to act like your father was being the unreasonable one in the situation, I doubt very much that your father, based on how you say he reacted when you were a 14-year-old child, would have tried to engage in a reasoned debate.  The thing is, this was not a one time thing. This is how this officer passes cyclists all the time. He does this every day. Every single day he goes out there in his squad car, the one he promised God and the city of Minneapolis he would only use to protect and to serve, and he endangers cyclists with it, because he is lazy, or stubborn, or because he just doesn't care much about cyclists.  You seem to think this cop deserves to be able to do this without getting told he's a bad person, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. 
Im an ex-user of ten years clean for about about that long. I only used herion, and only in NZ where it is treated as a health issue, not a criminal one.Things have changed, radically worldwide.  To get a modern perspective I would suggest you talk to the good people at r/opiates, just make a post explaining who you are, what you do, and what you want to know and you will get plenty of feedback Im sure. If there is one thing junkies like to do its talk about drugs.  Good luck with your work, its not an easy job you have chosen. But done right, its one that will be appreciated by many. [SEP] >To get a modern perspective I would suggest you talk to the good people at r/opiates  Man...looking through that sub is really fucking depressing. Holy shit. I don't even mean that condescendingly, it's just a very bizarre feeling seeing several posts of people talking about how they're going to start using.
LOL Comprehension isn't your strong point if that's what you've gotten out of it. Let me help you.  Religion = belief. Science/logic =/= belief.  Where you got "hatred of all things logical" out of "religion is illogical"...well, Fundies say the darnedest things.  Atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by EVIDENCE. If evidence comes forth, people will adjust. Hasn't happened yet, and no, hallucinations and pieces of toast don't count.   If you're capable of reading, take a look at this. If you still don't get it after that- well, maybe if you pray harder, you will. The evidence suggests that probably won't work, though.  Edit: typos [SEP] > Science/logic =/= belief  atheism =/= science/logic. Positivism = belief.  >Where you got "hatred of all things logical"   You fucking hate logic. You want logic to be annihilated from the planet to not get into the way of your positivistic circlejerk. "Everything is always false unless proven otherwise" - this literally makes me facepalm.  > Fundies say the darnedest things.  Wow, you're adorable! You're also a stuck-up, condescending douchebag with critical lack of education, but you're also pretty fucking adorable.  > take a look at this.  "We believe that atheism is not a belief, supported by the fact that we believe in it." Again, stop coming up with adorable shit and take philosophy 101 (but for that you'll have to get into college)
yes, dear, I know that YOU didn't. However, the comment to which you were replying, hours ago now, said (and sorry, I don't know how to do the kicky thing with the side border)  "This just proves that given the opportunity Religion ( especially a religion with only male figureheads) will try to control women into being submissive drones."  You replied to one half of that--I added a comment that replied to the other.  Now, go drink something cool and calm the fuck down. It's a reddit thread, not a viva voce for your PhD or anything.   [SEP] Your FTFY was pointless. It makes as much sense as me saying 'I like turtles' and you saying 'The sky is blue FTFY'. I didn't make a claim about the colour of the sky.  > calm the fuck down  Dude, you're the one who keeps swearing and telling me to calm down in a condescending way. Take your own advice and don't tell me how to comment on a public forum.
> Some objective constructive pointers about being kind to people hardly qualifies me as "an asshole" if that's what you're trying to say.  Inappropriate criticism, which is what you did, qualifies you as an asshole. We don't need to take people to a field of flowers and hold their hand, simply answering questions objectively and succinctly is what most people are looking for. OP didn't say, please be gentle with me, OP simply wanted answers. I stand by saying you were out of line in this case. Most 14 year olds are pretty damn sophisticated on the internet. Your condescension with this 14 year old was insulting. Loki5654 was not abrasive in any way that I saw. What exactly did he say that you thought was abrasive? [SEP] > Inappropriate criticism  Citation, pls.  > OP simply wanted answers.   Oh, you picked up on that this time, did you?  > Your condescension with this 14 year old   Are you retarded? That is condescension, mixed with astounded incredulity, directed at you, by the way. I was in no way condescending to the OP, or even to the person I replied to.   > was not abrasive in any way that I saw.  Well, sure, because by degrees you are far, far more abrasive, so someone who posted his response must look like coddling to you.   > What exactly did he say that you thought was abrasive?  I never said it was abrasive, so thanks for putting up a strawman. I simply said his answers were true and correct but did not go into a lot of detail or provide links to the sources he was talking about to help the OP. He was dismissively short in his answers, as I already explained in my original post.   
>We don't go out and find evidence of 2 and 2 making 4s  Yeah, actually we do. We know that 2+2=4 because we have consistent evidence that this is true. You take two apples, you pair them with two apples, the result is always the same. Evidence.  >"A bachelor is an unmarried man" is true without the use of evidence.  No, it isn't. "Bachelor" is the term we use to describe a concept. We have evidence that this concept of an unmarried man exists. So, we label it.   >One day a black swan came about and the claim was amended.  But, until they actually had evidence of a black swan, the claim "black swans exist" was unsupported by the evidence. Without that evidence, we would have no reason to believe that claim.  >The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claim that all swans were white, but was not at all truthful.  Correct. Which is why there is a difference between "I don't believe x is true" and "I believe x is not true."  When I say I don't believe god exists because I have insufficient evidence to support that belief, I am not saying "I believe God does not exist because all the evidence points to him not existing."  Again, without sufficient evidence, the belief in a God is unwarranted. If there is some other method for determining god's existence, other than the examination of evidence, that method needs to be presented. And, it needs to be demonstrated why that method is reliable.  >How can he even support that claim without evidence? It's self-defeating.  I don't mean to offend. I am enjoying this conversation. But, if you wish to continue, I would ask that you try to communicate a bit more clearly and effectively. I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.  [SEP] >Yeah, actually we do. We know that 2+2=4 because we have consistent evidence that this is true. You take two apples, you pair them with two apples, the result is always the same. Evidence.  Consider learning what an Axiom is.  >No, it isn't. "Bachelor" is the term we use to describe a concept. We have evidence that this concept of an unmarried man exists. So, we label it.  I'm sorry, this is a textbook example. You can learn about that thought problem here, and if you want to read the actual text by Quine, it's invigorating.  >But, until they actually had evidence of a black swan, the claim "black swans exist" was unsupported by the evidence. Without that evidence, we would have no reason to believe that claim.  Precisely, evidence provides support, not truth. This is different from your initial claim that truth is derived only from evidence.  >Again, without sufficient evidence, the belief in a God is unwarranted. If there is some other method for determining god's existence, other than the examination of evidence, that method needs to be presented. And, it needs to be demonstrated why that method is reliable.  You make a strong point here, but I only argue that you can be sure of God's non existence before appealing to an empirical model, or lack there of...  >I don't mean to offend. I am enjoying this conversation. But, if you wish to continue, I would ask that you try to communicate a bit more clearly and effectively. I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.  Yeah, maybe this was a little condescending. My point is that the statement, "Without evidence, we have no reason to believe a claim", if applied to itself, with its own absence of evidence in support of the claim, leaves the claim invalid on its own ground. To make it simple for you, I'm stating that I have no reason to believe that claim. I believe in tautologies and axioms and other non-evidentiary things.
Man, I am playing MTG for already 14 years and I even was in National team for one of World Cups. And in MTG there were metas with 2 or 3 decks but usually those deck really required skill to pilot correctly (like CawBlade etc). In Shadowverse now power level for cards from op classes are so high and do not have correct answers that those decks almost do not require skill. You only need to play cards on curve and you win.  And as for HS. For me HS was NOT viable all last year. That is why from Kharazan I didn't even do dailies there. I was playing Shadowverse instead. The problematic thing is that Cygames didn't took that HS experience into consideration. In TotG they printed cards on power level of Patches if not stronger. In MTG also worst metas was in times when Wizards printed too powerful cards. And for HS it is easier to get players back then for Shadowverse so Cygames should be more careful with what they do then Blizzard. [SEP] >Man, I am playing MTG for already 14 years and I even was in National team for one of World Cups.  In that case I beg your pardon. I hope I didn't sound too condescending on my last line.  Still I hope I've made my point across: we should only start worrying when cygames fails to fix the problems of the game or, even worst, pretends that there is no problem at all, like how Blizzard did with Priest last year in Karazhan when they tried to justify priest's shitty position by saying "One class has to be the worst right?".  Shitty metas will happen. Its the dev's response to them that matters.  During the RoB era they nerfed Goblin Mage and Piercing Rune 2 months after the new expansion came out. The nerfs were announced 21st of February if I'm not mistaken and took place one week later. If we base ourselves from that past experience then I think we can expect the nerfs to come by the end of this month and they'll be announced them next week probably.
>surviving a bullet to the head  Scientifically possible and factually accurate >being buried alive  Dug out by nearby friendly moments later, you'd know this if you'd had walked around and talked to people in the first town >TV controlled  His brain was directly linked into the computer network so he had direct control over it, not the other way around  >200 year old guy in a stasis chamber  It was a cryonic preservation chamber which is literally a thing which you can go and get yourself put inside of right now, cryonics are a currently existing technology  >makes more sense  So yes, 100% yes makes more sense :)  [SEP] >Scientifically possible and factually accurate  Sure is, extremely unlikely but sure. Would you say the same when you're shot to the head twice however? Confirmed by Benny himself? With something that looks like a pretty high caliber gun? And even then I think a better facility would be needed to treat that wound than the shoddy house you start in.  >Dug out by nearby friendly moments later, you'd know this  I did, it was the robot with such amazingly good digging apparatuses.   >His brain was directly linked into the computer network so he had direct control over it, not the other way around   I didn't add the   >controlled by   for nothing.  >cryonics are a currently existing technology  I've got my doubts on that not because it doesn't exist but because as far as I know cryonics lower the bodytemperature (including the brain) so much that the brain cannot function while in that state. Yet there he responds, fully functioning like nothing is wrong. It makes no sense to me. I suppose it's something you can be willing to suspend your disbelief for.  But hey, let's not be condescending by pointlessly arguing the finer points of the plotholes :)
Please, where in the article did it say they gave them a snarky verbal comment?  > "I looked over and said, 'It's okay sir. You won't have to worry about it, we won't hurt you," Homestead police Officer Chuck Thomas said. "He looked at me hard again and said he's not sitting here and walked away."  That's the only verbal comment the officers gave the couple. It's far from snarky. [SEP] >It's far from snarky.  If it wasn't intended as pure snark, then it was blatantly condescending - just as contentious.  Why does a customer not get to choose a seat without a comment from the cop? A cop with sense would allow the citizen to choose a seat without commentary.  Do you think the customer needed reassuring? Do you think the customer was "worried"? Do you think the customer felt at risk of being "hurt"?  This was an asshole cop performing for his buddies. He did not need to call out any comment after the customer chose another seat.  If this behavior doesn't register with you, then you are naive, or a cop.
Name a person you know or have ever heard of who claims to be love itself besides Jesus and ask yourself if they followed what love is in every single imaginable way. If they didn't keep it all they are not love just love mixed with other qualities.   "Does the parent disciplining their child with the rod qualify for the bible's understanding of love? [Proverbs 13:24] Or is such discipline against kindness/gentleness?" The bible says that to spare the rod means you hate the child because you are not disiplining them but to use the rod means you love them because you are teaching them valuable lessons. Some of the qualities are exhibited in different amounts at different times. Obviously if you are spanking a child you would be showing less kindness (though maybe you would show still much kindness by using a paddle instead of something more painful like a razor strap). At times like this you would be showing perhaps more of a stern hand which is another quality involved in love.   I answered those questions with analogies I'm sorry you didnt like or understand the analogies.  All these "giants" are ants compared to God  You are silly if you think I have not tasted of feeling like God doesn't exist and having those same thoughts many times. In fact I grew up in a very well known atheistic area, Austin Texas. So no I do know how it all feels I dont know what makes you think you know if I know how it feels isnt that a double standard in itself? [SEP] > Name a person you know or have ever heard of who claims to be love itself besides Jesus and ask yourself if they followed what love is in every single imaginable way. If they didn't keep it all they are not love just love mixed with other qualities.   We have yet to fully define love, so we cannot say for certain that anybody follows it in every single imaginable way.   Though a good example who I think followed love in as many ways as I imagine possible is Mr. Rogers. He never claimed to be love though - I feel he was much too humble for that. Here are some of his most famous quotes:  >Play is often talked about as if it were a relief from serious learning. But for children play is serious learning. Play is really the work of childhood.  >Knowing that we can be loved exactly as we are gives us all the best opportunity for growing into the healthiest of people.  >When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”  Here is a video of his address to Congress defending 20 million dollars to fund children's educational public programming.  >Some of the qualities are exhibited in different amounts at different times. Obviously if you are spanking a child you would be showing less kindness (though maybe you would show still much kindness by using a paddle instead of something more painful like a razor strap). At times like this you would be showing perhaps more of a stern hand which is another quality involved in love.  So love involves sometimes diminishing some aspects of love in favor of promoting other aspects of love? How do we determine these differentiations? How do we determine when to use more kindness vs. when to use more discipline? How do we determine if someone is using too much of X and not enough Y?  >All these "giants" are ants compared to God  This sounds rather condescending. None of the aspects of love we've talked about would assert this kind of talk. Not humility, not honor, not kindness. It is very belittling.  >You are silly if you think I have not tasted of feeling like God doesn't exist and having those same thoughts many times. In fact I grew up in a very well known atheistic area, Austin Texas.   Isn't Austin, Texas at least 50+% Christian?  >So no I do know how it all feels I dont know what makes you think you know if I know how it feels isnt that a double standard in itself?  This is partly why I pointed this out. I felt you were treating me as if I have not experienced a variety of these kinds of things. All throughout our conversation you have been treating my knowledge and experiences very lowly, comparing them to watered down cola and ants, all without trying to understand who I am or what my experiences are. So I directed our conversation to help you feel what I have been feeling throughout much of our conversation.  Can we now try and sit down and really discuss definitions rather than asserting that other people's ideas are inferior through analogies?
The AA process is linked with the concept of a higher power, submitting to it, and using that as a starting point to heal. This doesn't mean a specific religion, or religion at all. However, it does mean faith of some sort. If this is too much, you may not find the recovery you need.   That said, give it a try. The groups are mainly about the people involved and I hope you are able to find one whose members are able to help your family while remaining sensitive to your beliefs.   http  [SEP] > If this is too much, you may not find the recovery you need.  This is the kind of condescending rhetoric which really highlights the need for secular recovery groups.
social contract: I don't think you understand what this term means.  >The argument "Because it's religion..." doesn't hold up to any logic  Logic, like morality and religion is also a social and cultural construct.  >Every LGBT person I've ever met has told me they were born that way  You're either exaggerating or you know very few homosexuals. Quite a few lesbians I personally know prefer women because they don't like men, and quite a few gay men that I work with moved into the gay lifestyle after realizing that they enjoy the sex associated with it.   This isn't to say that it is entirely chosen, because some people ARE born attracted to the same sex, and some people ARE born in the "wrong body". If anything, what we DO conclusively know about sexuality should tell us that it is irrational and illogical, just like religion and morality. With regards to sexuality, there are no ABSOLUTELY correct answers other than reproductive viability, which isn't the basis of marriage.  Let religious institutions decide what "marriage" is, and let anyone have a civil union, with the same legal ramifications for hetero- and homosexual marriages.   [SEP] >social contract: I don't think you understand what this term means.  Marriage could be viewed as a social contract between two people and their Government as it applies to taxes and benefits, and recognized by states and towns as a legal Union. This was a typically condescending Reddit response, and didn't add anything to the conversation.   >You're either exaggerating or you know very few homosexuals.  Neither of these is correct. I suppose we could argue all day about the nature of sexuality and get nowhere. I trust in the personal experience of those I know, and also recognize it doesn't apply to everyone. Either way, irrelevant in the long run, regardless, people need to be given their rights without any limitations.   I don't buy your 'separate but equal' bit, because Religion doesn't deserve special status. I don't think churches should be in charge of deciding any policy that affects other people's lives outside their walls. 
I'm getting pretty tired of introducing myself. Either sticky my introduction at the top of this sub as it deserves to be or search for the full details. Quick copy-paste from my last thread:  >So most of you know me, but I'll introduce myself quickly. My username is "Capcuck", I am 54 years old from Bern, Switzerland. I am a polyglot; I speak 6 languages as well as speaking 5 different dialects of Nihongo. I have many other credentials but I'm just giving you a rough idea here of what makes me the supreme authority on this sub regarding matters of wits and arts. Recently, I have come under controversy on this sub for espousing viewpoints that challenge the status quo; namely, I have opened your eyes to the fact that the SMT series has more bad games than good ones at this point. In fact, the good games can pretty much be summarized as Nocturne, Strange Journey, and the Persona games if they count.    In addition to the above, a lot of the users here feel threatened by my superior intellect and social skills, so I get a lot of hate comments (wish the mods would ban these rudie puddies already). [SEP] > a lot of the users here feel threatened by my superior intellect and social skills  Considering the majority of your posts are defined by destructive criticism likely based in insecurity and since you are typically baselessly condescending, I doubt anyone in their right mind has any reason to feel inferior to you. If you aren't a troll then you're a really sad old man.
Yes and if you hadn't tapped out, it would have taken 6-10 seconds for a brown belt to injure a blue belt for several months. Not many people expect their ribs to pop out when sitting in someone's guard.  Why someone two belt levels above you felt it necessary to use a pain compliance move on you is puzzling.  I typically don't can opener or rape choke white belts, but that is just me. Also if I put someone in a Kimura, twister or heel hook, I stop before it could hurt them and tell them it is time for them to tap out. I don't keep applying pressure until they tap out as I know it will fuck them up seriously (as in more than a sore elbow). [SEP] > Also if I put someone in a Kimura, twister or heel hook, I stop before it could hurt them and tell them it is time for them to tap out. I don't keep applying pressure until they tap out  Well that doesn't make any sense, unless they're known for being stubborn it could just not be on yet or sometimes even not on at all, and people think you're being a condescending jerk for telling them their limits. Some people have different flexibility.  That's my view without context, though, it could make sense when you're actually doing it
If you find genuine, professionally acquired data to be a lame argument, then I doubt you'll actually consider anything I have to say. That makes what you're saying less of an argument and more of just simply bickering.  And if you're saying that Clinton winning the primary is somehow proof she has a better chance in the general, then I also question your ability to understand the data collected.   To put this real world scenario simply for you, rock beating scissors is not proof it'll beat paper. To use that logic would be a bad decision. [SEP] > To put this real world scenario simply for you  So condescending and arrogant for someone who doesn't even acknowledge arithmetic. Go throw some chairs.
I've listened. I am unconvinced.  Claiming authority by virtue of race might be an effective tactic with some people, but actually weakens your argument with others. Especially in this case, where you are are discussing the actions of people of one race using your membership of another for authority - I really don't see how you consider this sensible. [SEP] >Claiming authority by virtue of race might be an effective tactic with some people, but actually weakens your argument with others   Except we're discussing a subtle social phenomenon direct at black people, meaning that the average white person would likely never even be aware of it, much less encounter it or personally experience it in their lives.    Claiming that something doesn't exist simply because YOU haven't seen it before, and then going on to dismiss it's existence doesn't seem sensible to me either. Actually it seems pretty fucking arrogant and condescending.
Incredibly poor article, it's gobsmacking that was published by the NYT.  "Last year the Australian team toured South Africa, one of its strongest rivals."  No, no they didn't, that was 2014, NOT last year (no fact checking by NYT).   [SEP] >it's gobsmacking that was published by the NYT.  not really, they have a pretentious smug condescending opinion about everything
You do not make any sense. Franklin Graham considers himself a Christian. How is that not about Christianity? And if politics intrude into Christianity, we are more than justified in criticizing this intrusion. I am raised in a country where conservative evangelicals taught me many bigoted falsehoods when I was young. And their views come from these right-wing evangelicals. I have cause to be concerned for my own faith as well.  [SEP] >You do not make any sense.  Then pull yer head out, stop being insulting and listen.   Its not complicated. Its bad manners to go into someone's house and talk smack about them. Mom and Dad taught me that ages ago. If you want to talk smack about Mr. Graham, do it someplace appropriate. Start a r/Grahamsucks sub for all I care. This is a purely political post, aimed at separating a body of people who supported the president in the last election from them. And thats all it is. Dont pretend you have some high moral goal you are trying to attain. This is gutter politics, using gutter language, and belongs in the gutter, not in a sub to talk about Christianity. Pretending its otherwise is obtuse, condescending and insulting.  
Where have I focused on the physical? Sexual needs are emotionally and physically tied together. What is wrong with this woman trying to please her partner? Please explain.  [SEP] I have really tried to explain as best as i can, i honestly cant understand what you are not understanding, you just seem to avoid my point at all.  > What is wrong with this woman trying to please her partner?  you keep thinking that filling the physical needs is an "attempt of please her partner". like if the husband is some kind of animal. so no, this is not OP trying to please her partner, this is OP being condescending for her own comfort.
It doesn't matter to me if you have or want kids, doesn't affect me. People generally say "you'll change you mind" because people are always changing and the things you want or don't want today may change later in life or maybe they won't. Like I never wanted kids ever but when I turned 30,something changed and I wanted one, that could happen to you or not. I don't think people are trying to be mean, so even though annoying just brush them off.   I'm perfectly cool with child-free people as long as they don't call me a breeder or I have fuck trophies or my kids are spoiled little crotch fruit or compare crap parenting that they witness to my parenting. You know really disrespectful things.   Having kids isn't for everyone.  [SEP] > I'm perfectly cool with child-free people as long as they don't call me a breeder or I have fuck trophies or my kids are spoiled little crotch fruit or compare crap parenting that they witness to my parenting. You know really disrespectful things.  Sorry, we CFers can be harsh. I can offer no justification for the language, other than sensitivity at being marginalized. I must admit, rather shamefully, that around my childfree and gay friends, or on the internet, the term breeder has been used. I wouldn't dream of saying that to a parent's face, or in any personal communication. It is cruel and demeaning. My apologies.  > People generally say "you'll change you mind" because people are always changing and the things you want or don't want today may change later in life or maybe they won't  In response to the "you'll-change-your-mind" thing, I just don't get it. I really don't. Would anyone ever say to a graduate student, or some planning to move out of state, or get married, that they will change their mind? How arrogant and condescending! Or is it simply a lack of imagination and experience, this certainty that everyone will make the same choices they did? I don't know.  I'm glad you wouldn't say that to someone, and I thank you for it. I have a lot of respect for how hard parenting is, and even more respect for those who can do it with grace and maturity, without evangelizing it.  My thanks.  
I still don't get your point.   Debt sucks, but it ties the US and the Chinese together in a way that no other way can. It still exists and is an issue and should be considered. China buying this debt is a token of friendship and as far as I know they are considered one of our allies. If this is so, we should try to talk to them before getting others involved.   >We'll still buy their products anyway and if they stop it we'll just buy from somewhere else that allows it.  If the US and Europe takes a stand and puts an embargo on countries that do not comply with our standards on labor then no we will not. If we did it for the "Red Hate" you are resurrecting (look at what a shit hole Cuba is because of it), then surely we can put such a tactic to good use.  P.S.  >Have you noticed how the daily stories about Chinese mining conditions have stopped ever since the recent tragedy in the US?  WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT? If people die in your city you hear about that first if you get your news locally. Why would it be any different on a country wide, or even hemisphere wide, scale. There is plenty shit to be pissed about without jumping at shadows. [SEP] > it ties the US and the Chinese together in a way that no other way can.  That's what scares me. They may seek ways of not paying it via war, regime change or other dirty tricks. It's things like this that start world wars. When choosing between war or bankruptcy I think I know which way the US government will lean.   > (look at what a shit hole Cuba is because of it), then surely we can put such a tactic to good use.  IMHO it only gave Castro strength by presenting him with a foreign devil to rally the people behind him. I'd also say it's much the same in Iran and that I'd expect similar results in China. Have embargoes ever worked? They only divide and further distance the nations leading to more extreme behavior.   > If people die in your city you hear about that first if you get your news locally.   I didn't make my point well; despite there being industrial accidents in the third world daily, the Chinese mining disasters have been getting (IMHO) a disproportionate focus, in a very condescending way suggesting that their government treats them very badly (despite the mines being private). As soon as there was something to suggest that the west might also treat the safety and welfare some workers similarly then this meme had to stop because it would backfire. I haven't seen a single prominent story from China since the Virginia disaster yet a google reveals that there have been three or four more in China since then.   Give it a month and it will be back to normal. 
He definitely wasn't being intentionally disrespectful but his attitude/stance is one shared by many members of the church. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or an uncanny ability to rationalize things.  >Some people suggest there is a harmful effects the church has on the LGBT community, especially the youth, which I agree could be true. If the church does indeed have a negative impact on the LGBT community, dont you think it would be a better idea to have a constructive conversation rather than name calling? I dont think you can argue that they are intentionally causing harm to individuals of the LGBT community. Lets keep that conversation going but its not a good idea to use name calling. The church has and can change. So does medicine.  He kinda-sorta-not really admits that the church harms members of the LGBT community but somehow thinks that the church isn't targeting said members. I don't know how he can say that with a straight face given the new church policy directed towards children of gay parents found in Handbook 1 Section 16.13 that reads as follows.  >A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1.   >The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2.   >The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.  This is an especially hurtful policy given the contradiction of one of the Articles of Faith (basic beliefs of the LDS church originally penned by Joseph Smith). Article of Faith 2 reads "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Growing up in the church, I was taught that Article of Faith this extends such that children will not be punished for the sins of their parents; individuals are to be punished when they personally transgress.  Incognito_bill thinks that it is inappropriate to lash out at these sorts of policies in favor of calm, measured discussion. LDS church leaders don't listen, they don't want to listen, to people who disagree with them (see the September Six, [Kate Kelly]( http  John Dehlin, and the Strengthening Church Members Comittee). The church does not allow members (not just church leaders) to vocally (and politely, I might add) dissent from what those at the top have decided is true/best/correct.  When polite discourse inside the church is stifled, angry discourse outside the church will grow. [SEP] >dont you think it would be a better idea to have a constructive conversation rather than name calling?   He also seems to be willfully ignorant of the fact that a number of ex and disillusioned Mormons are trying to have a constructive conversation without name calling, and are getting nowhere because the true believers just insist that the church leadership is divinely inspired, so their policies must be perfect and correct.   It's very frustrating, and condescending nimrods like this guy pretending that this discussion isn't being attempted and shut down by his side is even more frustrating.  Edit: a word.
It's really not though, and I'm quite sure you know there's a difference.  That's why you can buy an S&W M&P 22 as well as the .223 version. They're not the same thing at all.  [SEP] > It's really not though, and I'm quite sure you know there's a difference.  Don't be so condescending. You're wrong. The 5.56x45mm is a .22 caliber round, just like the .22LR, .22-250, .220 Swift, .22 Short, and .22WMR are all .22 caliber rounds.
He hit on the one thing I don't like about the game. The racism doesn't feel well used in the game. It feels like it is there to make me dislike Comstock. I wish they would have developed Comstock's two sides more. They covered his prophet/racist side well, but I would like to see more of the person with political aspirations. Maybe a recording talking about why he needs to kill his political opponents, where he talks more like Andrew Ryan. [SEP] >It feels like it is there to make me dislike Comstock. I wish they would have developed Comstock's two sides more. They covered his prophet/racist side well, but I would like to see more of the person with political aspirations.  Can you point out a specific point where Comstock said himself (rather than the people who designed Columbia and the people around Comstock like Fink) things that were directly racist, rather than condescending, patrimonial attitudes toward racial minorities being unable to take care of themselves and being "disloyal"? The reason I ask is because Comstock's views on race I actually thought were quite nuanced, much more so than, say, Fink, who basically just denounced racial minorities as animals.  I thought that Comstock's opinions on race were actually one of the most interesting parts of his character, and its why I strongly disagree with the assessment that Comstock was a "2-dimensional character" or that the racism was poorly-used. When he argues that Lincoln was the "Great Apostate" who only "liberated" slaves from their ability to make a living, and other opinions like that, you get a real view of the way he views morality and the world, and he seems much less insanely fanatical and more so merely deluded in the way he sees the world.  >Maybe a recording talking about why he needs to kill his political opponents, where he talks more like Andrew Ryan.  That's the thing, he isn't Andrew Ryan - that's why he's genuinely interesting as his own character. One of the big problems I had with Bioshock 2 was that Sofia Lamb was pretty similar to Ryan except from the exact opposite ideology. Comstock is like Ryan in his fanaticism and somewhat similar in his libertarian-esque views about the US government, but as person he was definitely quite different. Comstock killed his opponents because they would have gotten in the way of his "mission" - I think that's all the justification he needed. Whereas on the other hand, Ryan turning toward mind control of the people of Rapture, conniving against his rivals, etc. demonstrated a direct betrayal of the principles he founded Rapture upon, and thus it made a lot of sense for the story to focus upon it, since that was one of the main themes in the game - ideologues becoming what they hate.  
First of all, worth is quite relative but consensus-derived opinion is different.   Second of all, you think because I'm downvoted people have objectively read my comment and replied with a succinct reason why they downvoted?  Or a lot of people going "Oh, he's downvoted so clearly you're wrong," which d'you think it is?  Read this:  > Why does reddit need moderation? Can't you just let the voters decide?  >The reason there are separate reddits is to allow niche communities to form, instead of one monolithic overall community. These communities distinguish themselves through their policies: what's on- and off-topic there, whether people are expected to behave civilly or can feel free to be brutal, etc.  > The problem is that casual, new, or transient visitors to a particular community don't always know the rules that tie it together.  > As an example, imagine a /r/swimming and a /r/scuba. People can read about one topic or the other (or subscribe to both). But since scuba divers like to swim, a casual user might start submitting swimming links on /r/scuba. And these stories will probably get upvoted, especially by people who see the links on the reddit front page and don't look closely at where they're posted. If left alone, /r/scuba will just become another /r/swimming and there won't be a place to go to find an uncluttered listing of scuba news.  > The fix is for the /r/scuba moderators to remove the offtopic links, and ideally to teach the submitters about the more appropriate /r/swimming reddit.  www.reddit.com/help/faq  Should I spell it out or can you understand the simple analogy? [SEP] >Should I spell it out or can you understand the simple analogy?  Wow, I don't think I've ever read anything as condescending on reddit before.  I said you were clearly in the minority because of the drama surrounding the decision to ban single-image posts, not because you were being downvoted. As for why you were downvoted, I think you can thank your arrogant attitude for that.  Your analogy might work if this subreddit was called r/seriousbusinessskyrim or r/nopictureskyrim, but it's not. There is nothing inherently bad about single-picture posts that violates the basic principle of this subreddit. Any un-intuitive rules put on top of that are just moderators pushing their preference onto thousands of others.  
To my knowledge toxic masculinity is a societal concept (already making it something that cannot be defined without generalizing, so take with a grain of salt here and there) that is perpetuated by members of said society regardless of their gender.  A man isn't expressing toxic masculinity when he's both: not harming other people with his expression; is comfortable being his own, masculine self.  The 'toxic' part of the term doesn't refer to masculinity as a whole being a toxic concept (that's both silly to assume and far beyond our current understanding of the human psyche) but rather specific traits that people would describe as masculine and especially "proper" masculinity. Traits such as unnecessarily aggressive behaviour, an endless thirst for sexual pleasure, lack of empathy, never allowing oneself to show any sign of 'weakness' and overly harsh and rough responses towards new or deviating situations.  Furthermore, those traits are only really toxic when the previously mentioned two criteria aren't met. If a man's worth is determined by others on how much sexual intercourse he has had (despite him possibly not being very interested in sex or maybe having trouble approaching such a concept) and as a result the negative emotions that come with such treatment are either damaging the man himself or those around him, the situation becomes an example of 'toxic masculinity'.  Or how 'cuck' has been such a popular insult in recent times. Stand your ground at all times, don't consider opinions people might find odd at first glance, be harsh and rough towards it or else you'll be considered a cuckold and therefore an embarrassment of a man and to manhood!!  That doesn't mean a man who is comfortable being a very tough stand-your-ground type of guy or someone who does have a lot of sex in his days are also bad. There's nothing objectionable about it if they're not harming themselves or others (by forcing themselves to act that way at the fear of being an outcast, for instance). You enjoy fucking a lot and don't abuse people through it? Cool! You're someone who can easily pick himself up again after taking an emotional hit without much help? Awesome! But don't shame the men who aren't exactly like that.  Toxic Masculinity is called that not because it's something that's supposedly 'naturally' apparent within all men. It's called that because people (all of them) assume that those certain behaviours are considered the norm of masculinity for all men, and deviating from it as a man is something he should be laughed at and shamed for.  Note: This is just what I know about the concept, I'm not gonna go claiming around like I'm some sort of professor on it. I just want to offer another perspective. [SEP] >To my knowledge toxic masculinity is a societal concept (already making it something that cannot be defined without generalizing, so take with a grain of salt here and there) that is perpetuated by members of said society regardless of their gender.  The vast majority of feminist discussions I've seen and participated in about men's gender roles and Toxic Masculinity treat them as perpetuated by men. Women's role in such gender roles is seldom admitted unless forced. The term seems to be applied to basically anything to do with masculinity that's considered bad, including, according to the #masculinitySoFragile meme, Campbell's chunky soup.  >The 'toxic' part of the term doesn't refer to masculinity as a whole being a toxic concept (that's both silly to assume and far beyond our current understanding of the human psyche) but rather specific traits that people would describe as masculine and especially "proper" masculinity. Traits such as unnecessarily aggressive behaviour, an endless thirst for sexual pleasure, lack of empathy, never allowing oneself to show any sign of 'weakness' and overly harsh and rough responses towards new or deviating situations.  Gimme a sec.   Rape Culture: Effects - Wikipedia   http    http    http    http   So, we have multiple pro-feminist articles, including Wikipedia, linking Toxic Masculinity to rape culture, and thereby to rape. Except mainstream "Patriarchal" masculinity says not to rape women, and in fact to protect and love them, despite Harding's claims. Being overly sexual towards women is in fact punished harsher than the reverse. Moreover, feminism itself has done no better than society in addressing male victims, regularly referring to rape as "violence against women", committed by men.  I'd also like to point out that an increasingly common feminist issue is the supposed sexist double standards around women being aggressive and assertive, notably with the #banBossy campaign, or claims that someone is trying to use "the Tone Argument" on a female feminist when she's asked to, well, tone it down. Men, the claim goes, are seen as leaders when they act the same way. So apparently it's okay to limit male aggression, but not women?  The same movement that came up with the term, and often claims that TM includes men not expressing themselves, also came up with memes like 'mansplaining', 'male tears', and devoted a significant amount of mockery towards #notAllMen. So apparently it's not really that men aren't expressing themselves, it's that men are expressing themselves in ways that disagree with feminism. Whose adherents often claim to be fighting for men, but have no problem telling men, both online and IRL, to shut up about their problems.  > The 'toxic' part of the term doesn't refer to masculinity as a whole being a toxic concept (that's both silly to assume and far beyond our current understanding of the human psyche) but rather specific traits that people would describe as masculine and especially "proper" masculinity.  Sweet! Now where are the popular feminist discussions of the "non-toxic" parts of masculinity? And how many of them involve men not having to be or support feminists? How many of these discussions involve male disposability, the idea that men should be first to give their lives for others?  >Or how 'cuck' has been such a popular insult in recent times. Stand your ground at all times, don't consider opinions people might find odd at first glance, be harsh and rough towards it or else you'll be considered a cuckold and therefore an embarrassment of a man and to manhood!!  While I do think the term is sexist, the insult is that a man is submissive to women to an unhealthy degree. It's roughly equivalent to "white knight" or "beta", with a transgressive, sexual edge. After all, the logic presumably goes, if he was a real man, he'd be able to keep her satisfied, right? So he's probably attempting to overcompensate.   It's not just about men having unpopular opinions, it's about a specific set of unpopular opinions, often associated with mainstream social justice ideology. RooshV has some unpopular opinions, but few people who know the of term and him would call him a 'cuck'.  Your definition isn't even close, and I can't help but wonder why you're describing the 'cuck' in terms of negatives, not positives. In fact, I don't even think that's precise enough to count as a definition.  PS: As I pointed out in my other comment, feminist discussions of TM seldom, if ever, discuss institutionalized sexism against men, or admit men have it worse off than women in any area. I think the lack of acknowledgement of male rape and abuse victims, often extending to active erasure of a governmental and legal level, should be a higher priority than the term 'cuck' or rape jokes, and I certainly hope you agree.
I have directly responded to your questions several times, your lack of understanding is not my concern and not a reason for me to continually repeat myself.   But please continue trying to show that your bias is not driving your opinion instead of logic and reason. You ignore the reality of the situation and facts at hand, instead you have fallen victim to a blatant PR stunt.   Good luck with buying that bridge for sale. I just hope you're not gullible enough to brag about that purchase too.  [SEP] >I have directly responded to your questions several times, your lack of understanding is not my concern and not a reason for me to continually repeat myself.  Considering the several messages you've sent doing nothing more than condescending to me, you clearly had 30 seconds to spare to point me to precisely the spots where you responded to the precise objections I raised to your flawed and somewhat inconsistent line of reasoning.  And somehow you can keep repeating these condescending insults, but you cannot repeat your actual argument? I'm going to let that massive inconsistency in your thinking just hang there for you to admire.  >But please continue trying to show that your bias is not driving your opinion instead of logic and reason. You ignore the reality of the situation and facts at hand, instead you have fallen victim to a blatant PR stunt.  "continue trying to show your bias is not driving your opinion instead of logic and reason"? Jeez, for someone who poses as something of an authority on well-crafted sentences, you've really strangled the syntax on that one. If you parse what you wrote carefully, you'll see that you've suggested my bias is driving my logic and reason. Might want to consult your style guide again, bud.  And regardless of this inelegance, somehow you keep repeating this line of attack, too. But no, clearly you cannot keep continually repeating yourself when it comes to something substantive. I'm getting a "big fish in a small pond" vibe from you. These are the tactics that a person of average intelligence uses among dummies to look smart. You need to up your game, Trevor.  >Good luck with buying that bridge for sale. I just hope you're not gullible enough to brag about that purchase too.  That was a very clever joke 60 years ago. Is this your thing? Use some slightly antiquated expressions in the hopes of appearing well educated? Why don't you walk the walk and point me to the places where you rebutted my objections to your flawed reasoning instead of dodging every single time? Show some backbone.
> You did nothing wrong and have nothing to feel guilty over.  I hear you. However, the author stated:-  > I had no idea, but I have been groping my daughter in my sleep for years.  Typically, groping people for years isn't a good thing. There's no mens rea, but the actus reus exists. That's Latin for "doing something wrong".  You'll have a hell of a job convincing a jury that she's the rapist when for years he has been entering her bed and touching her. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you'll have to do better than black-and-white thinking. No one is innocent in this situation, and I think it's counterproductive to try to make him feel even more like a victim.  My interpretation of events differs from yours. It sounds to me as if he and his daughter are victims of an illness that he doesn't understand and cannot control. Name-calling wouldn't be productive at this stage. [SEP] Name-calling implies that I'm being disingenuous with the label I place. I'm not. She raped someone. She's a rapist. You'll have a hell of a job convincing any jury that any halfway good-looking girl is a rapist. All she has to do is put on some make-up and pout. Those kinds of court cases are always heavily skewed towards the female's side. And forget about it if you're the father. It might as well be guilty until proven innocent. Even if the court decides in your favor, nobody will ever look at you the same again because the society-wide assumption is that a father should be strong enough to be in control all the time. I.e. Whatever happened was his fault. How could she force herself on him? He's the authority figure and is physically stronger.  Don't forget that the daughter had known that this was happening for years and said nothing about it. She liked it, so the only place there wasn't consent was on the father's side. Typically, not letting your father know he does something in his sleep that he wouldn't normally want to do isn't a good thing. If the father had known about it, based on his reaction upon learning about what happened, he likely would've stopped. What you're trying to convince us of is that a man, who sought treatment for his illness, is at fault for his daughter taking advantage of his illness. There is no gray area here and thinking that 'black and white' thinking never has a place in moral arguments is black and white thinking in itself. The argument is just a copout that people use to justify morally questionable behavior by assuming it's an inherently bad thing to do. I love how people are so protective of daughters when their fathers might be predators, but when a father is a victim, you get people trying to argue for the rapist's side.  > entering her bed and touching her.  No. They watched TV together and he fell asleep; a completely normal situation.  What is disingenuous, though, is thinking that framing a moral argument with Latin words makes it correct and better than someone else's. It's petitio principii and is intellectually dishonest. Mens Rea... Actus Reus... Just say intention and action. You sound like a college sophomore who thinks he's the only one who knows latin because he took a 200-level philosophy class. You'll have to do better with your condescending tone.   He was sleeping Jesus Christ. You sound like you wouldn't blame her even if he was a dead body. That's what gets people nowhere, that permissive bullshit where nobody is at fault and nobody is innocent. The only people who benefit from that are those that committed a moral wrong-doing. There's only an implication of fault on the father's side and no evaluation of the daughter's action. Convenient for her and he's left physically ill and seriously considering suicide, but let's just sweep that one under the rug, right?
It's not easy. That's what makes it fun. It appeals to a different type of gamer than you. Not everyone enjoys a challenge. That's ok. That's the reason we have these two franchises.  [SEP] > Not everyone enjoys a challenge.  that's a bit condescending.  
This is coming from the person who put one single puffer in a tank alone. Dude now that is cruel. You want your fish to be alone, just like you.  [SEP] > You want your fish to be alone, just like you.  Many predatory fish neither need, nor prefer "friends" in their tank. Many will tolerate them as long as food is plentiful, but pretending all fish need companions is asinine.  Likewise, it's much more cruel to overstock a tank or mis-stock it with incompatible fish, the absolute best outcome in those situations is that your fish survive in quiet suffering.  An adult GSP and adult figure eight cannot share water comfortably. That's a fact.   Not to mention the tank looks like a 29g full of baby puffers, which will eventually reach the size where keeping even one in that tank would be pushing its limit.  It's one thing to be an asshole about something, but it's much worse to be an incredibly condescending asshole when you're completely wrong about something.
> ...If that's legal then I would think that should be illegal as well lmao.   Why?  >So are you saying that an AR15 is only more effective at a minimum of 300 yards?  No, but in a confined enviroment (indoors, like a school) full length rifles are not optimal. Carbines or PDWs would be better.  > By the way, is it possible to load higher caliber ammunition in an AR15 than the standard?  Yes. You just have to change the upper receiver, the lower reciever and the barrel. Basically get a new gun and keep the sights.  >Your best solution to this mass shooting problem that we have more than any other country is to post kids up against the doors.  Nope. That is just one solution that doesn't cost anything, doesn't require depriving people of their rights and is more effective than anything legislators have proposed.   >Why do most mass shooters choose AR15 type weapons over hand guns? There has to be some benefit in general no?  Much the same reason they do it to begin with. For decades, mental health professionals have said that the way the media treats these events is the reason they are repeated. Aside from the AR-15 being very common, it is what the "heroes" of the shooters used.  >Do they think that though?  Yes  >Yet we're the only country that has far and I mean FAR more mass shootings than any other developed country. So what is the problem? Mental health? Why dont other countries have this massive outbreak of mental health problems that leads to multiple shootings all year and it's just us? In your opinion, what is the cause of the problem and what is your solution?   If you are seriously interested in reducing the amount of mass shootings, I absolutely encourage you to read what mental health professionals have written on the issue. Don't take my word for it, go out, do some reading, think critically and arrive at your own, informed, conclusion. [SEP] > Why?  You know why  >No, but in a confined enviroment (indoors, like a school) full length rifles are not optimal. Carbines or PDWs would be better.  but shootings aren't always within confined environments, I get what you're saying though.  >Yes. You just have to change the upper receiver, the lower reciever and the barrel. Basically get a new gun and keep the sights.  I see, can you do this to a hand gun?  >Nope. That is just one solution that doesn't cost anything, doesn't require depriving people of their rights and is more effective than anything legislators have proposed.  Im not sure Id agree with that. Again you're still not addressing that were the only country with this problem to this magnitude. How are all of the other developed countries keeping their mass shooting rates down? Im pretty sure its not by posting up kids against the door. Not trying to sound condescending but I don't think that it's a better solution than some good legislation. Not saying everything proposed is good though.  >Much the same reason they do it to begin with. For decades, mental health professionals have said that the way the media treats these events is the reason they are repeated. Aside from the AR-15 being very common, it is what the "heroes" of the shooters used.  So other than it's idolized theres no other beneficial gain to using an assault weapon over a hand gun?  >Yes  Dang, well I hope you know not everyone that wants regulation thinks like that   >If you are seriously interested in reducing the amount of mass shootings, I absolutely encourage you to read what mental health professionals have written on the issue. Don't take my word for it, go out, do some reading, think critically and arrive at your own, informed, conclusion.  Do you have any recommendations? sounds interesting.   But again, You still haven't answered why are we the only country facing this problem. Why is it, in your opinion, that every other country with stricter gun laws is doing far better than us in terms of mass shootings? And if it has nothing to do with regulation, what do you personally propose as a solution? Im curious to hear your point of view
You're not experienced enough to be making your own program.  Read the Wiki  Many (most) of us here manage to go to the gym more than twice a week whilst also juggling work/school and other hobbies. I'm sure you can too.  [SEP] > Many (most) of us here manage to go to the gym more than twice a week whilst also juggling work/school and other hobbies. I'm sure you can too.  You don't need to be so condescending, many of us (me included) survive off training 2 days a week because we don't have a choice. Something is better than nothing. 
Yeah, more typical teenage r/politics stuff. "Why shouldn't a wage be livable?" Uh, I don't know, there are countless reasons. One might be that, uh... (maybe grip your head firmly between your hands so it doesn't explode here...) THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING IS NOT WEALTH. Even defining "livable wage" would be way too tall an order for you; not that you tried. You betray your absolute lack of perspective and I again fervently hope you're no older than about 16.  Seriously, though, do I really have to use another example or could you use the pizza one I already gave? "Hey, high schooler making $5 an hour to wash dishes... sorry, but I have to fire you because I can't pay anyone less than $10 and you're not worth it." [SEP] >Yeah, more typical teenage r/politics stuff.  Wow, didn't think you could get any more condescending.  >Uh, I don't know, there are countless reasons. One might be that, uh... (maybe grip your head firmly between your hands so it doesn't explode here...) THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING IS NOT WEALTH.  WTF is this garbage? And you were whining about me being unintelligible? Are you kidding me? You still haven't watched the video, have you? Look, let me put it to you this way, because obviously none of this is sinking in: The 1% are the natural state of wealth, ie: they're taking a very VERY large share of the pie. The only way to get them to share that wealth, is to force them to (as in, regulation in the form of minimum wage). And we still haven't addressed corporate welfare; don't even get me started on that.   >You betray your absolute lack of perspective and I again fervently hope you're no older than about 16.  You know what? Fuck you.  >Seriously, though, do I really have to use another example or could you use the pizza one I already gave? "Hey, high schooler making $5 an hour to wash dishes... sorry, but I have to fire you because I can't pay anyone less than $10 and you're not worth it."  So let me get this straight, boss is too cheap to pay a few dollars more an hour, so the dishes ... what? Pile up and don't get washed? How does that make any sense genius? 
You obviously have zero understanding of the basic fundamentals of human beings.  Women have a womb for a reason. In all species, reproduction is the whole and absolute point of a species, and in our species females are the queens of reproduction. Every single person is born from a mother. Every single one.  Now how you get little babies is sex. Maybe you've never had this talk before, but that's how it works. A man + a woman = baby.  Now what drives attraction for women.   Security to protect her and (future baby),   This can be big muscles. It can be intelligence. It can be money. It can be a stable social position.  If you have all 4 I can guarantee you are getting married. GUARANTEE IT.  The other one is leadership. This one also stems from the primal urge to know where she and baby are going in life. Just like nomadic tribes, just like where to go and get food. Instinctively women are drawn to someone who can lead. Leadership also signals confidence which is important because when things get bad. Mother and Baby don't want someone to run away who a scaredy cat, or someone who doesn't know what they are doing with their life because uncertainty leads to insecurity...and as I mentioned earlier. Security is important.  All women operate on that fundamental principle. ALL OF THEM. Women are smart and complex and wonderful creatures, but the basic biological drive for mating (dating) is that, and it has been that way for tens of thousands of years. They are evolved to be wired that way. The reason being. Secure Mom => Secure Baby = Secure future generation. The entire primary fundamental point of the species.  Everything else you have been told to believe is total social psychology conditioning bullshit. None of it matters.  Attraction isn't a choice. It's a primal instinct that women are subconsciously turning on to push them in a direction for breeding. It always works this way. It always has.   [SEP] I think you make some excellent points sir, I hope you can pm me and tell me how to actually get a woman to fall in love with me.  > You obviously have zero understanding of the basic fundamentals of human beings.  your condescending tone is refreshing and of course ensures that I will listen more carefully and be more convinced by your humble opinion.   >In all species, reproduction is the whole and absolute point of a species,  Sure, bypass human psychology and sociology and go right to the primal instincts, that always works!   >Now how you get little babies is sex.  oh okay, youre right then, I did not know about this before.   >Security to protect her and (future baby),  I havent actually considered this. Its unquestionable that a woman can never provide security for herself on her own, even worse when she has a baby to take care of. Single moms are PROVEN to be failures, I feel bad for the pathetic life their children live.   >This can be big muscles. It can be intelligence. It can be money. It can be a stable social position.  Definitely what a woman needs. She cant possibly attain any of these on her own. Too bad most men dont notice that what woman need so they dont flank this side of their personality towards them.  >If you have all 4 I can guarantee you are getting married. GUARANTEE IT.  Yes I totally agree 100%. Literally nothing can turn a woman off if a man has those three things. Proof is those child brides who marry older men who just happen to have at least 3 of those 4 things.   >The other one is leadership. This one also stems from the primal urge to know where she and baby are going in life.   Correct. This is a problem for many men. They dont know how to lead properly and that causes them to fail. I cant imagine a woman leading her own life or knowing where she is going in her future on her own.   >Women are smart and complex and wonderful creatures,  Truely a unique species, Ive seen a couple of NatGeo documentaries about them. They truely are all mentally identical. some are very ugly though.   >Secure Mom => Secure Baby = Secure future generation. The entire primary fundamental point of the species.  All living things on earth seek one thing is to pass their DNA to offspring(by getting children). No form of real social and unique human development can drive a human away from their instincts, especially women, since they are a tad less developed (hence their need to be lead).  > It's a primal instinct that women are subconsciously turning on to push them in a direction for breeding.  Explains why the only girl I dates was the woman i threw money at and flashed a couple of times against her will.(shes obviously conditioned to stop me the first couple of times).  Oh btw big fucking /s, you nutjob.    
>The main reason I seem to see again and again for UKIP gaining ground. Islam and ISIS.  Surely no body can deny that islam has statistically higher extremists than any other religion.  >Extra-lol for the vehement desire to protect your own culture  I'm sorry you feel that way, do you hate your own culture? People of every background should be proud of their ancestry.   [SEP] > Surely no body can deny that islam has statistically higher extremists than any other religion.  I agree, whole-heartedly. Immigration isn't the way to solve it though, at all. You do not tackle an ideology or set of beliefs like this. It's just scare-mongering, plain and simple. 'Vote for us because we promise to take care of these guys.' It also conflates a belief system with a race or nation of people. If you're REALLY that scared of Muslims, why not just let in non-Muslims? I still think it's a sub-optimal strategy, but it's far improved than the ones proposed.  > I'm sorry you feel that way, do you hate your own culture? People of every background should be proud of their ancestry.  Why are you sorry? It's of no fault of your own. Polite, but redundant and a little condescending.  I hate parts of my own culture, don't you? There are good parts, and bad. But I don't think anyone should love their culture for it's own sake. Blind patriotism, nationalism. I love the great policies and ideas, whether they're from my culture/country, or anyone elses. I do not understand this petty emotional attachment to the place you were so happened to be born in. It's a fluke. Yet millions of people love their country and often gloss over and sometimes defend the heinous stuff it does, because of this. Why not be more objective?  If you really loved your country, you'd want to make it the best country you can. You don't do that by standing in the way of progress or change because "it's my ancestry" or "this has been out tradition" or this one that always makes me chuckle, "It's part of our identity!". Who gives a fuck? If there's something bad that's part of our identity, and you knowingly stand by it, fuck you. If you're willing to chuck out the bad, despite it being cultural or traditional? Then your love for your country or it's values has nothing to do with it, does it? It's not part of the argument, so why bring it up when you're trying to defend something?  All of this, without just reminding everyone that it's a logical fallacy. I.e. a big no-no.   http 
Hillary Clinton was a great candidate. She had the misfortune of being subjected to 30+ years and half a billion dollars worth of witch hunts. The fishing expedition on her husband, and that's all it was, was a fishing expedition, they found nothing on him but they kept going till he fucked up.   Bernie was NOT. A. DEMOCRAT. He only joined the party on April 30, 2015 -- less than two years ago. Solely to run for president. You can't jump in line in front of people who have spent their entire lives as public servants and then kick a big baby fit when you don't get your way. No wonder spoiled ass special snowflake millennials gravitated to him!   You don't get to jump to the front of the line ahead of Hillary Clinton, one of the most intelligent and thoroughly fucking vetted (see 30+ year half billion dollar non stop gang stalking gaslighting witch hunt) candidate in modern history. I mean, she was, is, and remains a better vetted candidate than Barack Obama, as great as he is.   YOU cut the bullshit. You've been spoon fed Gerbers baby food by the GOP establishment, laced with poison, if you think Bernie Sanders was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Sanders has some great ideas and great traits, but he is not and never has been presidential material. He'd make one hell of a tank had Clinton won -- put him on one issue at a time that he was passionate about, and tell him to not come back until it's fixed. That's how you deal with stubborn assed, single issue grumps. Bernie is the tank in every raid, but never the quartermaster.   Hillary Clinton is CLEAN as fuck. She made a lot of mistakes and was a little bit too hawkish for my tastes, but she's one of the most intelligent people in DC. She's not the rockstar that Bill was, but she's much smarter than he is.   Oh, and if I had an entire cottage industry who spent fucking decades with only one goal, to destroy me, yeah, she gets a pass for being closed up and secretive even. How can she not be in an institution with PTSD at this point? Because she's that tough-as-fuck.   I apologize for hitting hard. But it's bullshitbullshitbullshit and not merely naive but willfully ignorant to believe that 1) Sanders deserved to cut to the front of the line 2) Sanders was presidential material 3) Hillary Clinton was shitty, unlikeable, and untrustworthy, and 4) that anyone other than Hillary Clinton was qualified.   Now, the bad guys, having divided, are now going in for the kill. And they are truly the bad guys. I'm not even talking about that big fucking titty baby Donald Trump, who can't see past his vanity mirror. I'm talking about the American and Russian oligarchs who pull the strings. Donald Trump is just one more Black Sea yacht whore, and he doesn't even know it because he's only in it for the grift.  You, me, the people who fucking voted for Donald Trump, the shit heads on the_cheeto -- we're all fucked. Because they don't care about us, they never have, and they never will.  Imma ask the bartender to send the bill for my first shot to you. I'll buy the second one, but your post is just fuckery. And looking at your post history, your beliefs overlap mine. Except for your opinion of Hillary stated above. She is not perfect but she's great. And I have liked her since day 1.  The jobs are gone, they're not coming back. Robots and automation and China until robots take away China's labor. The goal is a stateless society where corporations answer to no government, no god (and no trick bitch single issue voting Christian), no law.   [SEP] >You can't jump in line in front of people who have spent their entire lives as public servants.......  >You don't get to jump to the front of the line ahead of Hillary Clinton,   So what you're saying is that everyone was supposed to fall in line because it was "her turn?"    >and then kick a big baby fit when you don't get your way. No wonder spoiled ass special snowflake millennials gravitated to him  Hmmm.....how well did insulting a generation of voters/potential voters work in this election? Do you think that using the same tactics of insults and being condescending are going to get a different result next time? 
You obviously don't understand how Riven's animation cancelling works, but E-R is better than R-E because it cuts the animation of Riven's Ultimate.   Edit: Why am I being downvoted? I explained why E-R is better and I contributed to the discussion [SEP] > You obviously don't understand how Riven's animation cancelling works  This is why you are being downvoted. The first half of your answer contributed nothing to the discussion and sounded really condescending.
I get it already, you take the doctrine for granted. You do not comprehend it's significance today. You do not understand the pragmatic application it had then, nor now.   The constitution empowers American citizens, shields it from tyrannical governments and keeps it in check by ensuring accountability amongst the different branches, and offers exclusive benefits that brought us into modern times as one of the most highly respected forms of governing.  There have been 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution since 1789, only 27 amendments have passed, 10 of them in one shot with the Bill of Rights. Changes to the constitution can only be accomplished through the amending process. It places strict limitations on how the national government can use its power. Later amendments gave rights to other groups and some changed how the government functions, such as making slavery illegal, giving women the rights to vote, things you care about I'd figure.   You clearly haven't read the 3rd amendment if you think that's true. > No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.  There isn't a labeled expiration date on the constitution, it would last as long as the government of the country upholding it does. It'll most likely outlive you.  Who knows what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the constitution, I'm sure they didn't imagine the 1st amendment would apply to radio, television, the internet, nor did they imagine the 4th amendment would cover electronic wiretapping and video surveillance etc. Which is why it's described as a living document, it grows and changes with the changing needs of the country. Through the addition of amendments, the constitution is able to adapt in ways that are needed for the nation to succeed.  The electoral college is more relevant today than it ever was, it prevented a war criminal bought by Saudi Arabia [\[2nd source\]]( http  from ever becoming president.  I'd advise you read the constitution in it's entirety before you make another shitpost. Thanks. [SEP] > I get it already, you take the doctrine for granted. You do not comprehend it's significance today. You do not understand the pragmatic application it had then, nor now. >  > The constitution empowers American citizens, shields it from tyrannical governments and keeps it in check by ensuring accountability amongst the different branches, and offers exclusive benefits that brought us into modern times as one of the most highly respected forms of governing.  You're exactly right. It is a flawed document that certainly hasn't protected us from our own tyrannical government which is evident by our own prison population.   I hate to break it to you buddy but you ain't exactly a free man. Our country serves the elite instead of the people who are being bullied by the system.   We are at a tipping point. Both sides of the aisle hate each other and we're all armed.... what could possibly go wrong? Just take you for example, you can't even have a reasonable conversation with someone who shares a different point of view without being a condescending dick.   Mark Twain said it best when he stated for you to love your country all the time and your government only when they deserve it.   The Constitution has failed us and much of the factors that contributed to us fighting the British 300 years ago are very much evident today. People work harder than ever while watching their money worth less and less. Something like 7 out of 10 Americans live paycheck to paycheck. That gap between rich and poor continues to grow while wages become stagnant. Our prisons are overcrowded.   You don't need to be a prophet to see that this whole system is hanging by an aglet.   As for Hillary Clinton, who gives a shit about her. She's just another conservative wrapped in democrat clothing. But if you are using her as an example as to why the EC is so great then you've completely lost me. Bush bragged about his war crimes of torturing people and illegally invading countries.... have you seen the body count in Iraq recently? I don't remember the EC saving us from electing that war criminal. Reagan sold weapons to extremists in order to fight an illegal war in South America.... I don't recall the system saving us from him. I do however recall the system protecting him.  
So basically impatience trumps safety?  If certain people can't handle being out in snowy/icy conditions, they should do themselves a favor and wait patiently for the roads to be cleared. You should always assume the worst when you head out. Anticipate unplowed roads and drive accordingly (or stay home).  It just seems pretty selfish to potentially endanger the lives of other drivers who have no trouble getting around (comfortable with the conditions) just for the sake of making roads more accessible to inexperienced and/or ill-equipped drivers.  Even if the state decides to take your side and makes it legal, it's plain old common sense to give these plow trucks the same equipment as emergency response vehicles to cross intersections safely. [SEP] > It just seems pretty selfish to potentially endanger the lives of other drivers who have no trouble getting around (comfortable with the conditions) just for the sake of making roads more accessible to inexperienced and/or ill-equipped drivers.  It seems awfully presumptuous & condescending to declare that this is the only reason plow trucks are in use. (I'm assuming from the way it's worded that you consider yourself one of the blessed few who have every right to be on the road in dangerous conditions because you're comfortable with it.)  There are numerous public safety implications if police, firefighters, EMTs, hospital workers, and other first responders and essential personnel cannot get around. Many times being stuck has nothing to do with your skill as a driver but rather the conditions of the vehicle, the tires, and the ground clearance. Someone can be an excellent driver but if they have a Honda Civic and the snow is 18" deep, they're not going anywhere without plowed roads.  Usually plow truck drivers will attempt to time their plows to reach intersections on the green, but as others have said, if they come to a dead stop it's very difficult to resume plowing.  If you're out on the road during a time of active snow clearing, you should yield right of way to these plows if they don't already have it. And in all likelihood, you shouldn't be on the road; it was a declared snow emergency in Lansdale.
You're bad at this. Gently wording things is condescension? I'm not sure you know what that word means, since your comments in this thread reek of condescension yet you accuse me of it.   You mean crawl back into my books and information? Sure thing. Enjoy your echo chamber of white supremacy and edgelord sociopathy.   I'm glad to see you've found reddit, a place full of like-minded people to share your twisted, racist worldview.  [SEP] >Gently wording things is condescension?  And now you're pretending to know that calling people 'dear' isn't condescending unless you're a senior citizen. Cute.  >your comments in this thread reek of condescension   Not really condescension; derision. Disgust at a mind wasted on hate, a twisted pursuit of a cause that's turned you into what you pretend to fight.  >You mean crawl back into my books and information? Sure thing.   Sometimes this is known as 'the ivory tower'. Reading isn't experiencing, and many acedemics are knowledgable idiots. You're in 'good' company.   This, by the way, is where you're supposed to start insinuating I'm uneducated, just in case you haven't read that book yet. Then I get to choose whether or not to enter an Internet pissing contest about whether my education is better than yours, and you assume I'm pretending 'school of real life' counts as academic credentials and you also assume real life experience is irrelevant. Maybe you try to play an age card and make accusations about my personal politics.  >Enjoy your echo chamber  It is amazing how little self awareness you people have.  >a place full of like-minded people to share your twisted, racist worldview.   Isn't that sweet. It thinks it's insightful.   When you wear racism-tinted glasses, you see it everywhere. And "If you're against BLM you're racist" is perfect groupthink for your type.
Express admiration and respect for those who have managed to lose weight. It's a terribly difficult struggle. Showing that you don't take that struggle for granted just because you haven't had to endure that particular hardship counts for something. Ask them questions about how they did it - what was the hardest part? What are they most proud of? Give them an opener to express pride in their accomplishment, and encourage those who are trying.  Secondly, while I don't quite understand the context of your neurologist topic diet, I think the part of it that you can take away and bring to such conversations is this: Everyone has different needs. A diet that works for one person may not be as effective for another. That is the most polite way of dealing with it, IMO. As a more specific example, if two women are debating whether one diet is better than the other, your contribution can simply be "Well that one might work very well for so & so, but maybe this other one would fit better with your life." Be encouraging for whatever someone chooses, as long as it doesn't seem dangerous - but honestly, even if it does seem dangerous, it might be better to just keep your mouth shut about it. I tend to open my mouth about this sort of thing far too often, and come off as a judgmental jerk.  Basically, if you aren't sure what to contribute to the diet conversation, stick to supportive and encouraging questions. [SEP] > Express admiration and respect for those who have managed to lose weight.  This is an honest, genuine (maybe ignorant as hell question) question. But wouldn't that sound so incredibly condescending coming from a thin person who has been thin all their life? I simply cannot think of a universe that exists where that would sound... appropriate. But this is in my incredibly limited experience with tradesmen, who are tough guys that would generally HATE this.   > I think the part of it that you can take away and bring to such conversations is this: Everyone has different needs. A diet that works for one person may not be as effective for another.  This is actually a common thing I like to bring up if I don't talk about my brain injury recovery. I'll add in something like this: "It turns out I'm allergic to tomatoes, not deathly, but bad enough that it was negatively impacting my health. When I cut out tomatoes my lactose intolerance lessened greatly. Isn't that weird? Food is so different for every person, there is literally no one size fits all thing."  Could it be that I'm talking about myself so much? The only reason I do it is because I'm concerned that talking about their situations could be received negatively.
>Once the liberal elite get pulled down with us, I couldn't care less.  And this is why people look down on Trump supporters: we know the majority of you are malicious willing to vote against your self interest to lash out against people who you think have excluded you. You won't gain their respect that way. You're just confirming what they already think of you. Maybe you should sit down with yourself, do some research and focus on what will improve your own life. Aiming to bring others down is destructive and useless. [SEP] > And this is why people look down on Trump supporters: we know the majority of you are malicious willing to vote against your self interest to lash out against people who you think have excluded you. You won't gain their respect that way. You're just confirming what they already think of you.  The fact that you somehow don't see how condescending and irreverently narcissistic you come off shows the blatant lack of self-awareness you quite obviously possess.  EDIT: Oh, I forgot this gem.   > Aiming to bring others down is destructive and useless.  Congratulations. You're now being stared in the face with your own hypocrisy, bolded and italicized parallel to relevant sections. Please, enjoy.  EDIT 2: Wow, I wasn't even aware of the initial reply.   > Is this supposed to be English? Or are you ironically living up to your uneducated stereotype? The Republicans don't care about you. You will get no jobs back from overseas. Your employment levels will go down. The taxes for the rich will go down and there won't be money to fund anything. You'll just get poorer and dumber.  Go read the article. It will do you some good to step outside the boundaries of your little self-involved ideological inquisition.
Ugh, I'm not a guy and this is just embarrassing to read. I don't understand why "manspreading" is even a thing. I never noticed it before, everyone sits awkwardly on public transport.   Everyone explains things, everyone swears. What's next? Oh, dick pics. Because only straight white people send those.   >find someone who looks nothing like you and let them speak.   Soooo... be racist? What?  >We, as a demographic, have been really quite terrible to other genders, races, and sexual orientations over the millennia  Why do SJWs love the sins of the fathers thing? And why are they so badly educated when it comes to history? Men have every right to offended by some of the filth that comes from these people.   >“slut”, “bitch”, “whore” .... It tends not to be a turn-on.  This man has never had sex.   >Appropriation is crime enough  lol no  Don't go outside, don't speak, feel bad about yourself for your race, gender, and orientation. Just kill yourself, basically. You're probably a rapist anyway.     [SEP] > I don't understand why "manspreading" is even a thing.  Because sitting with your legs apart is dominant body language. So they call it "manspreading".   Looking directly at someone is dominant body language. So they call it "stare rape".   Speaking your mind directly is dominant behaviour. So they call it "mansplaining".   Expressing your intent directly is dominant behaviour. So they call it "harrassment".   They basically just cannot stand the idea of a man who doesn't shuffle around with his head submissively bowed, doing what he is told. It's not about justice. It's about power. 
Queuing as 5 peoples does not bind you to forever play with them again haha.... if you dont like them move on and find others.   Even the rank mode is going to be 5man queu only, which further back my point that this is a team game. Its a game that shines while playing as a team... otherwise its simply a very easy version of LoL and Dota.  Teamfights is the name of the game, if you dont understand that now, you will eventually. And if this guy still dont understand that after 700 games quein alone, he probly never will unless someone try to explain it to him.  If hes fine having fun alone, good for him! Cause as you said, he can play the game however he wants its none of my business. Though dont come showin off builds that are made to play solo... there is little substance to that. Even worst, dont go saying youre continuing to play solo cause you want to improv even more.... when thr masterable aspect of the game lies in the teamwork. [SEP] > Teamfights is the name of the game, if you dont understand that now, you will eventually. And if this guy still dont understand that after 700 games quein alone, he probly never will unless someone try to explain it to him.  No shit, Sherlock, please shower me with more of your condescending tone. I like how you consider yourself to be a teacher of the mediocre. Well, carry on.  > Though dont come showin off builds that are made to play solo... there is little substance to that.  Majority of people play SoloQ or with 1-2 friends, not in full teams. Full teams are a minority. So that list is at least much more relevant than "here's my team's build that only rocks with perfect synergy powered by voice chat".  Why shouldn't he come "showin off"? He shares his experience, and even the title says "for SoloQ" not "the best builds in this game". If you consider the SoloQ to be an "invalid" part of the game, what the hell are you doing here? Shedding your higher enlightenment on filthy soloqueue peasants? At least this guy spent his time giving his backed opinion of the gameplay, not ranting about how people should play differently.  Create your own topic that shares builds for teams, that would be FAR more useful than just critisizing people. 
Temperature delta is a function of energy into the radiator vs energy out of the radiator. The material carrying the heat to the rad doesn't change that.   Come on dude, this is highschool level conservation of energy. The thermal mass keeps the water temps from rising rapidly with core temps, it doesn't make the CPU cooler.  [SEP] > The thermal mass keeps the water temps from rising rapidly with core temps, it doesn't make the CPU cooler.  Slower rise in water temperature = lower CPU temperatures.  Yes, it is basic.  Cut out the condescending attitude, there's no need for it.  > Which means they cope better at higher ambient temps than air coolers.  The CPU is being cooled by water that's at a markedly lower temperature than it would be with an air cooler because the coolant is somewhat isolated - less affected by heat from other components. This then means that the CPU temperatures a) peak much slower and b) don't cascade rapidly because it takes much longer for the water to heat up.  The eventual max temperature is reduced because larger AIO radiators + fans do a great job at keeping the coolant temperature from snowballing.
It's not "my" college football program, just pointing out how inaccurate it is to suggest that UW-Madison is "only known for having a football team". It's a terrific academic university that also has a strong athletics program [SEP] >UW is "only known for having a football team".  Yeah, I didn't say Wisconsin was only know for that. Which I pointed out already. If you can't get over that comment which was in response to your own condescending insult then that's your problem.  From the comment you just responded to, but obviously didn't bother reading.  >I never said Wisconsin was only a football school.
>I just don't get how that would be possible. Even if blisters only come in (half-able) 5mg pills, that would allow one to take any dosage necessary. 2.5mg and any multiple thereof.  Some people need 10 pills, others need 15, others need 90, a lot of medications aren't just once daily for a month. Also, you can't sell individual blisters, unless you put them in a bottle, because it needs to be child proof. And even if you wanted to, you wouldn't save any time counting blisters than you would pills. And they'd take up way more space on the shelves.  >Really? In germany we have, i'm not sure actually how many distributors we have, but every pharmacy has at least next day before opening delivery. And then they will deliver that medication to your door if you like.  Cardinal and McKesson are next day delivery, every day. The company warehouses are usually for a limited number of "fast mover" medications.  >I literally never heard of this happening, ever.  Then you haven't been involved in manufacturing, ever (my background was engineering before pharmacy). Every factory has limits in its machinery, and every factory has workers who make mistakes (the same kind that pharmacy technicians can make). And thus pharmacists have to check even blisters.  >Apparently governmental oversight of manufacturers is severely lacking.  US sets the standards for the whole world in drug research and manufacturing, but yeah sure, there are always limits.  >Huh? You don't trust your delivery drivers? What are they gonna do? Swap medications for others? Actually, in the land of the free and greedy, this might actually be possible.  Pharmacy is a business and these are highly controlled drugs, you can't just trust anyone. Every step in the process is documented as mandated by both law and basic business practice, otherwise you end up with drugs that have been tampered (or just left in the heat too long) or diverted with no way of tracking them. I guarantee you every single modern country does it the same way.  >Yeah, liability is a bitch in the states.  By third party I mean private health insurance payors (and government ones as the US is somewhat of a mixed system), but yes, legal liability is also a major concern and a large reason why pharmacists require a doctorate and are paid pretty well. [SEP] > Some people need 10 pills, others need 15, others need 90,  So what's the problem with selling people 10 pills more than they need?   >Also, you can't sell individual blisters, unless you put them in a bottle, because it needs to be child proof.   Are american childs and/or medicine takers significantly more dumb than germans? Serious questions here, not trying to be condescending.  >And even if you wanted to, you wouldn't save any time counting blisters than you would pills.  Taking four cardboard packages of 20 each out of a shelf or dispensary takes the same time than counting out eighty individual pills?   >Then you haven't been involved in manufacturing, ever (my background was engineering before pharmacy). Every factory has limits in its machinery, and every factory has workers who make mistakes (the same kind that pharmacy technicians can make). And thus pharmacists have to check even blisters.  My point was that a fault in manufacturing would always result in a PSA. I have never heard of such a PSA happening.  >US sets the standards for the whole world in drug research and manufacturing,  Ah, murica strong even if, apparently, unable to ensure manufacturers don't make mistakes.  >otherwise you end up with drugs that have been tampered  Checking some packs when accepting delivery, sure, checking them five times after accepting delivery... wtf? Who, employed in a pharmacy, would tamper with medication?   >why pharmacists require a doctorate  Yeah, don't get me started on the quality of american professional doctorates. It's really no different from a Masters degree, the MD, JD, whatever pharmacists are called. But don't worry, our german medical doctorates are a joke too.
This game was one of my favorites back in the day. People seem to hate it for the worst reasons though. Like, shoutouts to all my fuck boys, but you all are the most entitled, coddled, bitch bitches who ever tried to nut up fam. Let me break it down   Dead Rising is a game  Try to keep that in mind as we move forward   Time limit  That's the whole point of the game. Managing your time is supposed to be hard cuz it's a game. A game that's easy is just a movie anyway   Saving  Boo hoo you gotta potty to save. Bruh. They're everywhere. Cmon fam chill.   AI  It's supposed to be bad dawg. That's so you gotta play the game and save em. If they'd save themselves then your not gaming. Bruh. Fam! Smh?  Anyway this is like the literal last game I remember playing that was a real game first and "an experience" second. I never bought the sequel because I can't figure out which version I'm supposed to.  [SEP] > It's supposed to be bad dawg.  No it's not. AI can be useless without being piss poor. Look at the second game, they're frustrating without acting like absolute morons.   But continue being condescending, that seems to work.
Sure, there are flashbacks. This much is clear. But what is up for questioning is what is a flashback, and what is not. What is in the past, and what is not. And assuming the show is logically consistent, you can draw certain conclusions.   Like, for example, that if Dolores remembers Mib before she runs into William, William is in a timeline where Mib is old. Old Mib is in the present. This means William has gotta be in the present.   But like I said above, this could be some editing trickery. But if it is, I'd feel like I'd been lied to. In my eyes, that would be bad directing, and it would make me very sad.  [SEP] > I'd feel like I'd been lied to  Sort of how Maeve feels now that she's awakened? Not trying to be condescending, but I think that's the aim of the show, to give the audience a taste of not knowing the sequence of events, only glimpses of past events interspersed with the present. 
You don't need a revolution by violence, no -- but you will have to use violence to neutralize the capacity of violence on the part of people would use that violence as a basis of making themselves rulers. And, yes, I fully realize some of those would be rulers may be flying a red and/or black flag -- doesn't change the fact that neutralizing their capacity doesn't make you an oppressor, which is what you seem to be asserting.   > When a cultural revolution away from competition and violence occurs, people will be less prone to it.  I don't see any reason to think that the capacity for violence that exists won't be used by some to try to maintain/re-create authority and hierarchy, unless that capacity is neutralized.  > If violence is in self defense, then it's not fascism. If its an assassination, then it is definitely fascism.   I'm talking about neutralizing the capacity for violence of people who would try to make themselves tyrants -- if that's not self defense I don't know what is. And what's the problem in your eyes with assassinating people actively using violence to make themselves a tyrant or ruler -- how is that not just a form of self defense?   Also, as an aside, fascism actually has a meaning -- it doesn't just mean political violence or even authoritarianism. When you use it in the loose and sweeping way it actually hurts your argument.  [SEP] >Also, as an aside, fascism actually has a meaning -- it doesn't just mean political violence or even authoritarianism. When you use it in the loose and sweeping way it actually hurts your argument.   I'm talking about dictating by force. An assassination is the most underhanded form, and a disgrace to anarchism.   >I don't see any reason to think that the capacity for violence that exists won't be used by some to try to maintain/re-create authority and hierarchy, unless that capacity is neutralized.  I didn't used to think so. Turns out there's some good anthropological evidence from baboons that says otherwise. I can provide a link if you would like.   Either way, it's not the tyrant that is the problem, its the people who give the tyrant power that are the problem. Tyrants exist because pyramidal hierarchies exist. We need a cultural revolution, not assassinations.   EDIT: Sorry if this came across as condescending. Sometimes I do that, and regret it. I edited it to be not condescending.   Also: Have you seen that example in Baboons where alphas + allies die, and passive and peaceful social relations reign for decades afterwards? It shows the power of a social reconstruction.   In the case of humans, we have a much more complicated issue - because we have civilization, rather than just a troop. Wouldn't you say? 
> I'm sorry that you aren't interested in that.    Perhaps you could say, “fair point. Here’s where I disagree.”  With regard to your contention that it is working within the party, yes I do see your perspective there. My point on California was that EVERYONE, even when they are polling <2% thinks that “the machine” is holding them down, when it’s not really possible that every single one of them is The People’s True Favorite. There’s going to be some natural tension between wanting to change what other people don’t think needs changing, and it’s not realistic to think they will welcome you with open arms.  You say the people have to decide. Well, I want a Democrat, and I’m flexible on flavor. Why is it okay to deny me my choice because they really, really, really think that they are the super-duper, double-dog flavor that’s going to change the world?  If there was a blue dog nipping at Beto’s heels in Texas who consistently polled behind him, but insisted on sucking energy out of his bid, I’d want them to get out too.  [SEP] >> I'm sorry that you aren't interested in that. > > > >Perhaps you could say, “fair point. Here’s where I disagree.”  In your first comment you used condescending language to paint progressives as unique, beautiful constellations of possibility, you made this about a very uncommon jungle primary in California, compared progressive challengers to the pedophile Roy Moore, and suggested that by being involved in politics and running for office they were handing their districts over to republicans.   You ended that comment by comparing progressives running for elected office within the party to them wanting to burn the party down.   That doesn't seem to be a very inclusive view, regardless of how politely you preface your words. How exactly would a movement wanting to see a change realized within the party that represents them work to make that happen then, if running for office is for some reason disallowed?  >With regard to your contention that it is working within the party, yes I do see your perspective there. My point on California was that EVERYONE, even when they are polling <2% thinks that “the machine” is holding them down, when it’s not really possible that every single one of them is The People’s True Favorite. There’s going to be some natural tension between wanting to change what other people don’t think needs changing, and it’s not realistic to think they will welcome you with open arms.  Natural tension can exist, it would be surprising for it not to. It is an unacceptable abuse of power however for the people in positions of authority to deny progressives a fair contest in races such as the one in Colorado highlighted in the article. You and I are not in positions of power so we can debate different sides of the argument all day but it would be very different if I also had the authority to pressure your favored candidate out of the race and was working to do so.  >You say the people have to decide. Well, I want a Democrat, and I’m flexible on flavor. Why is it okay to deny me my choice because they really, really, really think that they are the super-duper, double-dog flavor that’s going to change the world?  Firstly, neither you nor the DCCC are fortune tellers. The current DCCC does not exactly have a great track record of choosing winning candidates over the last decade. Secondly, can you not see the condescension in your second sentence there? How is that not divisive? The difference is that you say you're flexible on flavor but implicit in your argument is the unsupported idea that candidates like this one in Colorado won't win. I want a fair contest between contrasting visions of the future and to support the victor of that fair contest as they will surely represent my views better than a republican opponent. Whose attitude is more divisive here?  >If there was a blue dog nipping at Beto’s heels in Texas who consistently polled behind him, but insisted on sucking energy out of his bid, I’d want them to get out too.  It's fine to want things, even though I would disagree with you. It is not fine for the organization responsible for holding fair elections to support a single side in that contest however. It undermines the very idea of a democratic primary process.
Don't bother. This guy is smarter than all of Harvard and Yale, you will never beat his stellar arguments [SEP] >This guy is smarter than all of Harvard and Yale,  Are you implying that, simply by disagreeing with the personal politics and pseudo-science of a bunch of sociology professors at Harvard and Yale, that I believe myself to smarter than literally everyone there?   Is it "man-splaining" if I point out how absurd and incoherent this comment is?
Actually, I do believe it is. I don't think you are well equipped to deal with reality and you seem to lack the mental apparatus to distinguish the difference between your profanity laced posts and mine. [SEP] > well equipped to deal with reality   You opinion =/= reality.  I use these profanities because rather than proving your point like a normal human being, you choose to be a condescending prick. You don't approve of Maidan? Support russia's policies? Don't be a prick and take cheap, pathetic jabs at Ukrainians in /r/Ukraine. Those who perished at Maidan are Heroes to many. My Motherland means a lot to me. By using pathetic little jabs of "LeL i hoPe rusha takes the east TroLLolol"; you're doing nothing but making yourself look like an idiot.  If I'm such a stupid "fascist", why bother responding? Go back to your miserable existence of spamming reddit with your delusional, propaganda garbage. 
It’s not so much they are a “bad person” and wish you all would stop twisting my comments like that.   It’s this: if you are a short person and some woman openly rejects you on height to your face, that’s not a person worth pursuing, is it?   It’s “shitty” for that person to reject someone like that based on height, which is my opinion, but ultimately that girl will end up with who they end up with and you, the proverbial short person, will end up with someone who isn't discrimatory.   Just as a Jew isn’t going to marry a Nazi. Or a person of color isn’t going to marry a white supremacist.   People have biases. Having a preference for red hair =/= “I refuse to date anyone besides redheads.   People always have wish lists. My point was that it’s 99% bullshit, in my experience, because sometimes you meet someone who breaks that list.   My OP was really poking at the classic internet complaint: I see more guys bitching about being discriminated against for being short vs. women bitching about short guys.   Yeah, it’s a fun stereotype to make fun of girls (or anyone really) with unrealistic expectations of their ideal partner, but at the end of the day, people fall in love with short people All. The. Time.   Obviously short guys are getting it. I think some of you are getting way too riled up over some stranger’s opinion, whether is me or some bitch on Tinder.   Who cares? The girl says “no short guys” while the guy says “no fatties”. In both cases, you just have to take it as their problem and move on.   There are girls who don’t care about height. I’ve got many short friends who were successful. That’s all I was trying to say.  [SEP] ​  >There are girls who don’t care about height. I’ve got many short friends who were successful.  Is not the same sentiment as:  >Short people are the only ones who care that they are short. I’ve never seen anyone IRL disqualify a person based on them being too short.  >  >However, I have seen many instances where a short guy refuses to date a tall woman. I don’t get it. You are boob height, what’s the problem?  Having a real problem admitting how you came into this thread apparently since you refuse to acknowledge this.  Understand how these are not the same? If you had started this exchange with "well, lots of people have unhealthy expectations, but that doesn't mean you won't find the right person" we would not be here. You chose to start it with "that doesn't happen to guys, but I do see guys do it to girls."  ​  Its a fuck ton of wasted time if you really think"tee hee, I knew all along that this happens to both sexes from the start, I just like being condescending, obtuse and trollish on the internet to strangers. Its fun to waste peoples time by talking about off topic things!" If this is the case, grow up.  ​  >I think some of you are getting way too riled up over some stranger’s opinion, whether is me or some bitch on Tinder.  ​  And for the love of Christ stop talking down to me and giving unsolicited life advice or acting like I spend any time on tinder beyond clocking the phenomena we are discussing. Its beyond condescending at this point.  You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean people have to agree with you. In this case, your opinion is "well everyone can find love" in a thread that is about "isn't there a social bias despite similar behavior between men and women." Cool, nice opinion and I have agreed every. single. time. you. have. said. it. but it isn't what the thread is about.  >There are girls who don’t care about height. I’ve got many short friends who were successful. That’s all I was trying to say.  You've said it plenty of times. Do you think that point hasn't sailed across yet? It was never a point of contention in this discussion at all. Never once did I push back against the sentiment but you keep saying it as if I'm arguing about it. Bizarre. I guess its easier to defend something that nobody is attacking than admitting you misspoke earlier or talking about the actual subject. Mind how you go.  ​  ​  ​  ​
It's almost like Rwanda is not a perfect country, but neither is any other country in the world... [SEP] >It's almost like   Stop being a condescending twat.
>Really depends on how any given person wants to define the boundaries.  No, it doesn't. You're just setting arbitrary rules because you said something dumb and someone called you out on it. Pretending that your stupid, arbitrary rules should be accepted as valid simply because you made it up only makes you look worse.  No one would argue that the Witcher games aren't a trilogy simply because they switched engines. The engine has nothing to do with how you group a trilogy, it would be like claiming a film isn't part of a trilogy because it was filmed digitally while the other two were on physical filmstock. That would be ridiculous.  By that logic we don't need a Half Life 3 to bring a closure to the narrative of the "trilogy" because we already have two sets of three games released on both of Valves engines.  There are 4 games in the series. If you insist on grouping things as "trilogies" even when it doesn't make sense, you can't claim there isn't at the very least a "trilogy" of Counter Strike games.  But hey, if you really want to go into the world where words don't actually mean anything and it's all about "how a given person wants to define the boundaries" then fine. I now declare that a trilogy only requires two parts and therefore Valve has now made more Trilogies than any other studio ever. [SEP] >You're just setting arbitrary rules because you said something dumb and someone called you out on it. Pretending that your stupid, arbitrary rules should be accepted as valid simply because you made it up only makes you look worse.  Bananana wasn't the one saying something dumb; they were just playing devil's advocate.  If you're going to be super condescending, at least keep track of whom you're replying to.
Please sir. This is disgusting. Don't shield rape because the accused is a BJP guy.  Please.  Edit: And here I get -3 votes because of being sensible.  Bhai muze bhi BJP accha lagta hai lekin uparlikhit comment ye saaf chutiyagiri tha.  If nothing else, don't you guys want the BJP to fucking win? Do you think it will if it's support base and even one fucking member of the party supports/shields the accused, who is probably guilty as in most highly-covered rape cases or tries to transfer the blame to the opposition to score a political point?  Don't you guys at least agree that assholes exist everywhere? Even in the BJP? Don't you think we should rid the BJP of afforementioned assholes?  The most politically and more importantly morally correct strategy for the BJP would be to publicly condemn said accused and cut off all ties with the person.  And to those who are crying that the BJP MLA is not yet convicted, would you have practiced such sensibility had the accused been from the opposite ideology or party? No you would not. Look at threads about a Maulvi or Congressi being a rapist.  Don't let the BJP supporter in you overwhelm the human in you.  Okay never mind. Keep downvoting. [SEP] Even if accused is a BJP guy, it's an act of an individual, why bitch about BJP?   The media and khangress is clutching at every little straw to whine about Modi, it's election time after all   >Okay never mind. Keep downvoting.  Why do leftist idiots have this condescending mentality towards those who have opinions different from theirs?   congress is a despicable party, can do anything to come and stay in power. I am like 70% sure this is a political stunt by congi goons and then frame BJP as a whole for scoring political points. Stop crying like a bitch and see the point of my comment.   The poor girl deserves respect and justice, which will happen eventually. Using this tragedy for scoring political points and defaming BJP is just retarded and in very very poor taste.   Anti Hindu propaganda is also being spewed on twitter and other social media in the name of insulting BJP.   The commies in Kerela have already starting their drama by saying all Hindus are rapists etc.   Hindu phobia in this country is pretty real. I'm sick of my religion and culture being blamed for these things. Terror has no religion, rape has no religion, crime has no religion unless the perpetrators are remotely linked to Hinduism, then it's all fine to mock Hindus and discriminate against them   Stupid people  
1. I have a history degree.  2. Don't go all nationalist on me. When Germans hear "1920s radical German nationalists," there's only one party they're thinking of. [SEP] Is it medieval history or classics? Because your 20th century German history isn't up to scratch. Seriously though, as long as you haven't specifically studied 21st century German public perception of the late Weimar republic that isn't relevant at all here.  And   >Don't go all nationalist on me.   What? I'd be happy with "condescending" as that was what I was going for, but nationalist? O...K....
> Having lots of mana to spare is not the reason Anub is/was strong. It's his base kit CC and ultimate that make him strong.   Good ol' single-cause fallacy :) We do all realize that him being strong is actually caused by a combination of incredibly many factors and each of them would be a suitable way of regulating his strength? Yeah, the world is complex, it sucks. [SEP] > We do all realize that him being strong is actually caused by a combination of incredibly many factors and each of them would be a suitable way of regulating his strength? Yeah, the world is complex, it sucks.  No shit. That's why I mentioned several ways of reducing his strength and cited his entire base kit plus his ultimate as the reason for his strength, rather than "cocoon op plz nerf". But of the various attributes of Anub'arak, his mana costs are one of the least impactful aspects of Anub'arak, since they don't change how good he is in a team fight save for niche circumstances.   No need to be condescending. 
Some atheists do think that way, or at least use that kind of stereotyping language. Some Christians do think that way about Atheists as well. I see it often enough for it to be "a thing". Both sides of that coin are wrong. There are people on both "sides" who conflate differences of ideology with differences of quality.   Stereotyping is a problem, for every people-group. It's a tendency we all have to reduce someone in "the other" camp to less than what they actually are. This article is pointing out the faults of that line of thinking. [SEP] > I see it often enough for it to be "a thing".  Mind giving any example?    > Stereotyping is a problem    Which is why a bigoted article implying that atheists are uncharitable condescending arses whilst christians are noble selfless creatures who feed the poor and endure the scorn or the aforementionned atheists is a problem.
>Just so everyone knows, this douchebag, fr-josh, was asked multiple times by multiple people in another AMA thread to prove who he was.  I said in the OP text that I would do so if asked by the mods. I didn't get any such message, or it was buried in the 9000 comments in my inbox.   >For example, he said he was unaware of all the homosexual activity within the priesthood.  I talked in depth about the homosexual activity within the priesthood. I said that I personally wasn't involved in it and didn't have personal stories about secret gay sex (or something like that). Also, where was your link from?  >There was a lot of other stuff, too, but it was a while ago, so I don't remember all of it.  You tried to say that all that Aquinas wrote was doctrine, as if he never speculated in theology. The man wrote 50,000+ pages in his life- he's bound to make some errors.  I really shouldn't be rehashing this with you. I should know better than to feed the troll. [SEP] >I said in the OP text that I would do so if asked by the mods. I didn't get any such message, or it was buried in the 9000 comments in my inbox.  You know good god-damn well that this is not how it works. I don't know what makes you think you are above the rules of the AMA. I can guess at some possible reasons. Maybe pride, or condescending attitude, who knows what, but none of the reasons seem on the up-and-up to me.  Yes, I saw the proof, but you never gave it on the AMA, only on this post.  In one sense, I'm more disgusted with redditors for accepting someone just saying it. This is horrific, and is the basis for all the problems of the pedophilia endemic in the priesthood.  >I talked in depth about the homosexual activity within the priesthood.  You said it does not exist in the priesthood as far as you knew. This is bullshit, and I gave many citations. The way you spun it is that it does not exist, as far as you knew because you never saw it. Well, that is not exactly in the spirit. I've had enough of the priesthood of spinners. You should be a commentator on Fox news, dude.  >Also, where was your link from?  Beats the fuck out of me. This whole thing was from a month ago, and I just started getting bombarded yesterday out of the blue, so I'm taking all my time to respond to these comments.  >You tried to say that all that Aquinas wrote was doctrine, as if he never speculated in theology. The man wrote 50,000+ pages in his life- he's bound to make some errors.  That is not what I wrote. You misrepresent and spin, par for the course for priests. Furthermore, it was never about this, and this alone. It was about your not proving that you were a priest in the AMA. Why is that not getting through your thick fucking skull? Are you fucking retarded?  >I should know better than to feed the troll.  Well fucking stop eating then, troll. Don't ever do an AMA and not give proof again, douchebag. You know this. It is not up tot the mods. All I can conclude is that you are a cocksucker. Metaphorically, but not sure if physically, not that I care, except if it is with little kids.  
Never said it was a predictor of success but when there are kids involved it's nice to make sure everyone can live together before committing to marriage and work through any bumps   Congratulations for reading studies I'm proud of you  Also,changing things because you've signed a piece of paper is silly and that's how kids resent stepparents. Move slowly and build a relationship before giving orders but you don't have to be a doormat either. [SEP] >Congratulations for reading studies I'm proud of you  Being condescending is not necessary. There's no place for that kind of treatment of others in this sub.  The way you make sure everyone can "live together" before committing is to date long enough to establish trust. That length of time varies for everyone.  
No, these are not all aesthetic criticisms, but rather (mostly) criticisms of how the visual elements either serve or detract from the communicative value. But you are right in that it is still pretty subjective.  There is no such thing as objectively good or bad art and that's okay; there is no such thing as objectively good or bad music either. Art is not a philosophy or a value set any more than Writing is. Art makes no claims as to what is or is not valid and I think that the disconnect between most people and art is that they expect it to. [SEP] > Art is not a philosophy or a value set  you can't possibly believe this. there are hundreds of years of aesthetic philosophy--from plato and aristotle to kant and hegel. That you (and many contemporary critics) choose to discard them in favor of an "everything is of value" postmodern ethic is a choice.  I think we can agree that a large measure of contemporary art is generally not aimed at being accessible, uplifting, or of interest to the general public. It speaks to a limited segment of the population-- generally critics and patrons. in that sense it's elitist and decadent. Just watch your average family of four shaking their heads as they leave a contemporary art museum (never to return). You might counter that that's not their intended audience-- but that's precisely the problem.  note: by art im referring to traditional forms-- painting and sculpture-- not emerging technology-based art (which is the only way for an avant garde to continue to exist, IMO)  edit: if my comment comes across as angry or condescending, it wasn't intended that way
Well, the military service changes that whole picture and response, but thank you for being forthcoming about it.  I also don't know what makes you think that low wage jobs are just for young people. Only about 30% of the population even has a college education, so maybe you are looking at that from a limited perspective.  The unpaid internship...sheesh...don't even get me started with that. Indentured servitude. Should be illegal. That's just another way for corporations to take advantage.  Let's face it, we have to generate some fake wars just to keep the military going and the economy rolling. Many of the wars in the last 40 years have been started under false pretenses to prop up our fake economy, make other country's resources available to our corporations to satisfy our lusty consumerism.   That's probably a touchy area, and I'm not faulting your service. There are many fine things that are military does.  I don't want to sound accusatory, because I respect your service and I wish you the best. I'm all for hearty individualism and lifting up your own bootstraps. But, you couldn't have done it without someone else's tax dollars, so try to keep that in mind when you make it big and treat the Tyree's of the world with some respect, too.       [SEP] Sorry for the late reply, and i promise to drop the subject, but i wanted to touch bases with you on this comment.  > I don't want to sound accusatory, because I respect your service and I wish you the best. I'm all for hearty individualism and lifting up your own bootstraps. But, you couldn't have done it without someone else's tax dollars, so try to keep that in mind when you make it big and treat the Tyree's of the world with some respect, too.  My 8 years, two combat tours, and the youth i sacrificed says that i earned the college education that i am getting. It is true that the taxpayers paid my salary, and for my education, but i earned every penny of it. Don't misconstrue my attitudes towards the Tyree's of the world as being condescending. It is the fact as someone who grew up extremely poor and aware of the stereotypes associated with my people, i am very critical of their actions.   I get that not everyone can be doctors and lawyers, but siding with the Tyree's of the world and having their pay increased just a little can do more harm than good. It sets the bar low for them to survive on, and it doesn't give a sufficient stepping stone for the kids that come behind them to launch themselves off of.   Escaping poverty was a solo project for me. There were no role models that i could look up to in my community and say "that's the person i want to be like when i get older." Often i was even considered an outcast because I didn't assimilate to the culture around me. However just because i didn't have any role models in my community, that wasn't the case for many of my peers. Because the people that did have jobs worked in low paying retail and service industries, a lot of the youth turned to drug dealers, and women who used their kids as a paycheck for their inspiration.  Ending poverty has to be a top down, and bottom up approach. While certainly most Americans do not have to go to post secondary school to be successful, most Americans didn't have to weight till the 1960's and 70's before their race had an opportunity to compete on equal footing. My parents grew up during that era, that's how close it still is. Personally i think as the children of that Civil Rights movement, it is our duty to take their sacrifice and build on it by setting higher standards for ourselves than the Average American, and making sure that their grand children and great great grandchildren have the opportunities that they fought and died for.
Sure, but even if they did do the child bones, they would have no reason to show the dragons. Even if they tried to catch them. It'd be better for next season when they can mention every episode "We made an attempt on Drogon. It failed." Episode 3 he flies away. That way his abandonment is fresh in the viewer's mind. They are not the most attentive crowd. They didn't remember Aemon was a Targaryen.   Tyrion is going to be the longest, that's for certain. Meaning except for Arya, fringe stories are going to be unused. Brienne. Sansa. All of them. What we're left with in the closing is Stannis and Stoneheart.  Stannis--maybe. Just to show a massive force? Maybe fire magic? Stoneheart -- resurrections can be epic if they try. [SEP] > They are not the most attentive crowd. They didn't remember Aemon was a Targaryen.  That was like two comments, don't be condescending. Show watchers aren't idiots.   You still have to admit that D&D have talked about the most expensive per second scene in GOT history which obviously has to be CGI. It can't be LS. 
I really feel like I'm in bizzaro land every time I hear Bernie supporters complaining about how Hillary supporters behave, after 8 months of being attacked personally and insulted by Bernie supporters, called a shill twice a day on this subreddit, and after seeing Bernie supporters actually send death threats to people who blog or tweet about how they support Hillary.   I mean, the primary is over, we really need to put that stuff behind us, but I still can't help saying just, what, seriously?  [SEP] >called a shill twice a day on this subreddit,   What's wrong with that? Honestly, I don't see why you would be offended about that. You picked a candidate who has actually hired shills to "correct the record". You can't side with someone who blatantly employs shills, and then get mad when people assume you might be one of those shills. Maybe you're not, but I only have your word to go on for that, but you're energetically supporting someone who actually stoops so low as to hire shills, so by supporting such an obviously ethically-challenged candidate, it's hard to believe that you would be an ethical person.  >and after seeing Bernie supporters actually send death threats to people who blog or tweet about how they support Hillary.   Citation needed. I've never heard of this.  > after 8 months of being attacked personally  I've seen far more of this from the pro-Hillary crowd myself. It seems pretty hypocritical to complain about this when your own side has been engaged in it so much more.  >I mean, the primary is over, we really need to put that stuff behind us  No, we really don't. You can vote for whomever you want, but don't you dare insult me or condescend to me about who I should vote for. I will not vote for someone who's a right-winger and whose supporters have been so abusive. Fuck them. I'll vote my conscience, just like Cruz said. I don't like that guy much and still think he's a possible theocrat with terrible stances on issues, but I do respect him a lot more now for not putting "party unity" above his own personal standards and decency. I wouldn't support someone who personally insulted my family either, and it's the same on this side of the aisle. 
THAT'S all you had to say. That's good feedback and the sort of stuff that discussions are made from when people ask questions. "Get over it" is shallow and pedantic.  Also, I don't know anything about you. The only thing I know about you is what you post on the internet, and when you post dry comments like that, you make yourself look like a douche. [SEP] > THAT'S all you had to say. That's good feedback and the sort of stuff that discussions are made from when people ask questions. "Get over it" is shallow and pedantic.  His sarcastic and condescending post did not deserve that type of response.  > Also, I don't know anything about you. The only thing I know about you is what you post on the internet, and when you post dry comments like that, you make yourself look like a douche.  What I meant by "If you knew anything about me" is "If you've seen me around here".
Is it really necessary to express your dislike for the Conservative party, just to admit that you find yourself agreeing with one Conservative member as he argues against the Conservative party line?   You don't need to wear your blanket ideological rejection of the blue team as a badge of honour to have adult political discussions. It's actually better if you don't.  [SEP] > Is it really necessary to express your dislike for the Conservative party  No, it's not necessary.   Was it necessary for you to express your opinion on my comment? (Rhetorical question)  > It's actually better if you don't.  You don't need to tell me whats best for me to do when stating my opinion without providing any reasoning as to why it's better, you come across as a condescending know it all.  > to have adult political discussions   And I wasn't seeking to engage in discourse because I didn't ask a question, therefore, didn't expect or indeed want any replies to my comment simply stating my opinion on this video.   I encourage you to feel free in dispensing with a reply.
Cause your accusing someone of cheating who just wants to play the game  Then make s thread and post about it  [SEP] >Accusing someone of cheating who just wants to play the game.  No, I just want to play the game. He doesn’t want to play the game, he wants to break the rules when he is losing because he can’t syand to watch himself lose.  He is very clearly breaking the rules and playing unfairly as described by the devs, and people use this to cheat(which the odds of him doing the same are high because people don’t intentionally disconnect and take the double loss in points knowing it can get them banned, they are more likely to get the win out of it).   So the reasons are equal.  I just want to play the game, and he continuously abuses the system, so I made a small post to rant a bit.  You want to sit there and say, “you didn’t have to make a post. Why not just report and move on?” YOU didn’t have to leave your comment, you could’ve just ignored it and moved on. Yet your reasoning seems a bit more ridiculous, you left a condescending post because “someone abusing the game wants to just play the game”? 
You just assume that all possibilities for political reform have been exhausted. The LAPD needs intervention from outside agencies. Not vigilantism. Can you point to a police department that has been reformed by Dorner-style vigilantism? No? How, historically, have police departments been reformed? Maybe through a political process?  You started this conversation by implying there was no better answer. Putting a message in a bottle would be a better answer than Dorner's, as he is decreasing the odds for serious reform by, as you seem to agree, invalidating his criticisms with his unjustified actions.  >THE ONLY THING THAT MATTER IS THAT HE'S A MURDERER.  Who's putting words in who's mouth? [SEP] >You just assume that all possibilities for political reform have been exhausted.  I'm not assuming anything. I only point out the obvious...a century of corruption and nothing has changed. What does that tell you? That we haven't found the right solution? Then the question becomes, will we ever find the right solution? Situations such as these do not work themselves out. It is not a matter of tweaking things here and there. It needs to be big and sweeping. How do you affect change within an institution that does not want change...that wants to protect the status quo and will do anything and everything within its powers to resist that change, while having the law on its side?  >The LAPD needs intervention from outside agencies.  LOL...yeah? How's that working out?  >Not vigilantism.  Please point out where I suggested this.  >Can you point to a police department that has been reformed by Dorner-style vigilantism? No?  Point out where I ever said this as well.  >How, historically, have police departments been reformed? Maybe through a political process?  For no reason at all? Or was it a massive public outcry? Everyone knows that rampant corruption exists. And rather than everyone understanding that and being outraged enough to demand change, we actually have a camp of people who seem to embrace the notion of "forget the unerlying problem that the corruption that exists, that guy is a murderer and that's the ONLY thing that matter!" Fucking Christ.  >You started this conversation by implying there was no better answer. Putting a message in a bottle would be a better answer than Dorner's, as he is decreasing the odds for serious reform by, as you seem to agree, invalidating his criticisms with his unjustified actions.  Really the only point that I was trying to make about this incident is how it should be about raising the awareness of how the underlying issue is far more important than the murders that occurred. Obviously you disagree. Either that, or you seem to think that I believe the ends justify the means. I never stated that. That was nothing more than an assumption on your part, and an egregious one at that.  >Who's putting words in who's mouth?  "Again, aside from moronic reddit armchair vigilantes, his unjustified actions have completely invalidated whatever point he was trying to make."  BTW, this particular statement shows what a fuck you are. Stop being condescending...you're not nearly as intelligent as you perceive yourself to be.
Which is why we elect only 18 year olds to be President, and to serve in Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, and we only draft grandparents to be in the military.  ;-)  but, over all, all I am suggesting is that there is a phenomena, however explained or not.  Along the same line see this author   http   And in a related angle see also this ted video by Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor (which opens the door to a biological explanation)   http   along with this NPR piece on the Dali Lama connection to the Society for NueroScience   http   What Welles provides is one more data point that something is going on there  there is something going on there. That's all.   I can't say that they are all idiots. [SEP] >Which is why we elect only 18 year olds to be President, and to serve in Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, and we only draft grandparents to be in the military.  Hey, you know what? That's nothing but a condescending sarcastic insult, and I don't have to take it. I warned you about this once before, and you haven't learned. You didn't apologize for the first time either.   Why do you do this? Does it make you feel good? Does your ego need that much stroking? Because it sure as hell doesn't improve conversation, nor make anyone more likely to listen to what you say. If you think that sentence is actually a constructive counterargument and not just inanely childish, I see no value in talking with you. You blow me off with sarcastic and arrogant dismissals, you lose the privilege of continued discourse.   >there is something going on there. That's all.  Yeah, that's what I said too. Of course there are things going on. Have the courage to actually say what you think instead of being mysteriously vague and non-committal as though this made your statements seem "deep" and "open-minded" instead of just devoid of content. It isn't working.  The things your linked materials have to say have nothing to do with contradicting what I've said. You're not actually presenting them in the spirit of "check out this cool stuff", you're packaging it with the condescending implication that I'll see the light and acknowledge how smart and insightful you are, as though I were being "closed-minded" about how "magical" the brain is. All of this while not actually saying anything of substance on the topic.  The human mind is a wonderful, complex and beautiful thing, but you don't seem to actually have anything interesting to say about it. 
Que feo caso, pero no nos hagamos, en todos los partidos han de hacer algo parecido.  Qué vergüenza, por eso no progresa México.  Y lo más feo, que en la cuna de la inteleptualidá virtual Mexicana, existan 6 downvotes para éste post. ಠ_ಠ  [SEP] >Y lo más feo, que en la cuna de la inteleptualidá virtual Mexicana, existan 6 downvotes para éste post. ಠ_ಠ  Siempre es padre ver que alguien se expresa de manera condescendiente y tiene faltas de ortografía.
You don't understand - you are assuming that TERF's 'hate' any group - but WE are the ones who infer that their behaviour is hate. Consider this - your evidence that TERF's hate men is that they exclude them from Women's spaces like they do men. This requires you to have already assumed that TERF's hate men. There are many reasons to exclude men from a women's space - the hate comes in from their refusal to take account of that persons decision to change their gender. This is not something that TERF's could do to cisgendered men, so you must provide more evidence that they hate men.  > If you don't view men as "the other," then it simply doesn't matter what your radical views on gender are; you wouldn't view trans women as encroaching onto "women's space,"  This is your real argument, and it has nothing to do with Trans people. You object to women having separate spaces at all, since Feminists are quite explicit about the need for women's only spaces. It is unneecessary to bring Trans people into it - TERF's are just a particularly hateful form of a group who hates men in this view. I disagree that women's spaces are evidence of feminists hating men, or treating them as 'the other' - for reasons I outlined in my last point. In fact - I am a man, how can I (being a feminist) treat myself as 'the other'? Is that not a contradiction in terms?  > because you would think "male" and "female" spaces shouldn't actually exist as false dichotomies of an inherently gendered system.   Perhaps, but we live in a society where women are the majority of the victims of gendered abuse, and excluded from political and economic power - if we lived in a completely equal society, you might have a point. Until we do, women are going to need their own spaces.   > A rather large one, and two if you include /r/feminisms. But in any case, I'm not particularly worried about the ratio of TERFs to other feminists.   Fine, whatever - it's clear that they do not represent mainstream feminist thought. I mean, Trans people are treated pretty badly by ALL of society - shouldn't we applaud the fact that the majority of feminists are supportive of trans issues, and that feminist gender theories have contributed much to the trans movement, instead of focusing on the hateful group (that is present throughout society).  > I don't, actually. I see evidence of it over and over and over again that I would be hypocritical to ignore.   Uh - where?   > I think I might be willing to call myself a feminist if I ever see anyone substantiate 1  Domestic abuse statistics? Rape statistics? Everday Sexism project? How about look into history like, 50 years? Are you really denying that women, who make up half the human race and were excluded from voting for most of America's history, who were considered property until far too recently, who still are treated in this way in other places, experience more sexism than men - the historically more powerful group, who have committed the majority of rapes, the majority of domestic abuse, held exclusive power for most of history, and still do in some places across the world?  > coherently define the terms in 2   Ok - we live in a representative democracy. The majority of politicians are men. The majority of CEO's of companies are men. The majority of the owners of capital are men. The majority of millionaires and billionaires are men. America has never had a female president. Are these not coherently defined terms? These are all what I (and most people) would consider political and economic power - so how do men not clearly still hold the majority of political and economic power.  > and then substantiate it  There is just a ridiculous amount of evidence for this - look up the proportion of women in the house and senate, consider that every single president has been a man. Look up the proportion of male and female CEO's, the proportion of male and female capital ownership. I'm not gonna find these things for you - it is just obvious.  > to what extent they are and to what extent these things matter in the grand scheme of moral philosophy.   This is ridiculous - you don't think there is something morally wrong when women, who make up half of the population, are represented within a democratic system far less than men, and have far less ownership of capital and control of business within a capitalist system? The only way you can possibly justify this is in thinking that women deserve not to be represented - which is sexism, plain and simple.  > It's hard to say what "their" aim is, because "they're" composed of a bunch of different entities and conflicting views, terms, definitions, outlooks, philosophies, plans of actions, etc.   Not really - the disagreement is in things like 'method,' where to focus, who to consider women etc. - but all feminists agree on basic premises. 1. Women have historically experienced, and continue to experience, disadvantages on the basis of their gender, and 2. This should be changed.  > What I can say is that from what I've seen and in my own experience, I've not been impressed with the direction feminism seems to be headed in: a focus on dividing the genders and alienating men (and women!).   I don't know or care what your experience is - I care what feminism as a political theory actually is. Feminism has been, and continues to be, a movement for the advancement of women within a patriarchal society - nothing about this implies alienating men. I am a man, I do not feel alienated - so our anecdotes canel each other out. Now, tell me how exploding gender norms has disadvantaged men? Tell me how campaigning against domestic abuse and rape has disadvantaged men? Tell me how women gaining the right to vote, no longer being considered the property of men, and demanding equal pay, disadvantages men? At most you can claim that they ignroe and exclude men - even if this were true, considering the systematic privilege that men have had, a focus on women's issues isn't exactly sexism.   > But I think "feminism" would be remiss to ignore (or laugh off and insult -- which it seems to be doing more often these days) its detractors because those detractors seems to be growing in numbers.  Has feminism ever not had detractors? It's hard to take them seriously when they (as you have) deny that men have benefitted from systematic sexism, when they deny that women experience the majority of sexism, abuse and rape. And how would you like them to take their detractors on board? All I ever see is anti-feminist saying 'Feminists hate men, they don't care about mens issues' - and feminists denying that they hate men, and pointing to the many areas where feminist theory and practice has helped men. There is one side denying reality - and it is not feminists.  > First of all, since you're the one making the claim here, do you have evidence to substantiate your claim?   I will find them for you, but I think it's absolute bullshit that you even try and deny this. Do you deny that it was legal to beat your wife in recent history?   Here, from the American BAR association -   In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).  - In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.  - Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.  - 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female  - Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers  Here is where I got these from  http #prevalence  So, don't make disingenous attempts to deny that women experience abuse because I didn't link you to a nice cushy data set spelling it out to you from the off - if you are serious about considering issues around gender, you would already know this.  > you'll see that I frequent /r/femradebates, and I have these sorts of conversations fairly often,  This doesn't mean that you're good at having these discussions, or well informed - it just tells me that you're probably too preoccupied with 'taking down feminists' as opposed to doing anything to actually aid debate.   > so I'm quite familiar with a wide array of studies that have been done on these subjects   Clearly fucking not.  > And while more women do get raped, and more women do suffer from domestic abuse....  Just so you can't wriggle away from it   - 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female  Not the vast majority? Really? I don't think I am the misinformed one here.   > That's simply not accurate. A man who's beaten by his wife is the butt of jokes in the media here and everywhere. That's been the case for some time.   That doesn't mean support doesn't exist for these men - but absolutely that is a problem, and one which feminists would argue stems from patriarchal gender norms. Which is absolutely something feminists are trying to address - so what is your point?                      [SEP] >I don't know or care what your experience is - I care what feminism as a political theory actually is. Feminism has been, and continues to be, a movement for the advancement of women within a patriarchal society - nothing about this implies alienating men.  I'm reminded of my Libertarian friend who always remarks, "I don't care what your experience with Libertarians are or what your opinions are -- I care about what Libertarianism is. And what Libertarianism is is the essential belief in personal responsibility." I keep trying to tell him that I do believe in personal responsibility; I just don't consider myself a Libertarian, for a number of reasons....  >I am a man, I do not feel alienated - so our anecdotes canel each other out.  I don't think that's how these things work...but if it's a numbers game, well there are certainly fewer feminist men than non-feminist men.   >I don't know or care what your experience is  You know, if I were a woman, wouldn't this be a bit blasphemous? Or would it be "mansplaining"? Certainly it's denying my experience.   >Now, tell me how exploding gender norms has disadvantaged men?  Let's start with the definition of rape, which was made to exclude men by Mary Koss.   What about feminism's lobbying to crack down on sexual assault, which has curbed due process rights for the accused and landed a number of innocent men in jail or with their lives in ruins?   What about NOW's lobbying against default shared custody?   What about the duluth model, which has gone to great length to punish men just for being men and hidden violent women from punishment because they're women?  What about feminism's contribution to "stranger danger" and its effect on men and their interaction with children?  What about the lack of support men receive for domestic violence, rape, human trafficking, and other issues because they're "women's issues"?  What about hiding data on the gender symmetry of domestic violence?  What about shutting down men's conferences?  What about the Tender Years Doctrine?  >and demanding equal pay, disadvantages men?  Do you have evidence that women do not receive equal pay because of discrimination...or are you referring to the wage gap that's due to different life choices, preferences, and social mechanisms?  >Has feminism ever not had detractors?  It's certainly not trending in your preferred direction according to poll numbers....  >It's hard to take them seriously when they (as you have) deny that men have benefitted from systematic sexism, when they deny that women experience the majority of sexism, abuse and rape.   It's funny -- you haven't adequately substantiated your claims, but you repeat them here as though they're some scientific fact, like evolution or gravity. Let me make something clear: science hasn't demonstrated that women face more sexism than men, that's it's objectively worse to be a women in Western society, or that men benefit from sexism more than women. These are simply things that you believe to be true. I understand why you believe in them in the same way that I understand why people believe in God, but I don't believe in them. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.   That said, I think it would behoove you to take those detractors seriously. For one thing, unbiased people tend to get annoyed when people appear smug or self-righteous, arrogant and haughty. Acting like you're above your dissenters in such a manner probably won't win you any friends in a debate. I've been nothing but courteous to you. I've noticed this about feminists (among many other groups) -- they're usually so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they think being an asshole is justified. Hence their PR problem.   >All I ever see is anti-feminist saying 'Feminists hate men, they don't care about mens issues' - and feminists denying that they hate men, and pointing to the many areas where feminist theory and practice has helped men. There is one side denying reality - and it is not feminists.  Well golly, if it were that black-and-white, even I'd be a feminist. Unfortunately it's not. All I ever see are feminists saying hateful things about men and disrupting men's issue, anti-feminists pointing out the problematic aspects of feminist rhetoric, and feminists responding by shutting down the conversation, attacking the person's character, or accusing him of 'mansplaining' or her of 'internalized misogyny.' What was it you said before about experience? I guess mine cancels yours out, right?  >I will find them for you, but I think it's absolute bullshit that you even try and deny this. Do you deny that it was legal to beat your wife in recent history?   Why is that bullshit? And what does the legality of beating your wife have to do with anything? Are you saying that it's deductively impossible that both "wife-beating was legal until recently" is true while "many more women suffer from abuse and rape" is false?  >So, don't make disingenous attempts to deny that women experience abuse because I didn't link you to a nice cushy data set spelling it out to you from the off - if you are serious about considering issues around gender, you would already know this.  You seem to be assuming bad faith -- that's unfortunate. Here's what I'll do instead: a list of 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews showing women are as aggressive in relationships as men.  This study out of Florida found women were more likely to perpetrate abuse on their partners than men.  As for rape, you're familiar with the 1 in 5 women have been sexually assaulted study, yes? Using a similar system of measurement, 1 in 6 men have been sexually assaulted.  There are lots more studies as well.  >This doesn't mean that you're good at having these discussions, or well informed - it just tells me that you're probably too preoccupied with 'taking down feminists' as opposed to doing anything to actually aid debate.   Bit of a cheap shot. I think I'm pretty good at them, but at this point I honestly don't really care what you think.  >Clearly fucking not.  Ahem.   >Not the vast majority? Really? I don't think I am the misinformed one here.   But you are, as the studies I just cited show. Yours are cherry picked data.  >That doesn't mean support doesn't exist for these men - but absolutely that is a problem, and one which feminists would argue stems from patriarchal gender norms. Which is absolutely something feminists are trying to address - so what is your point?  Yes, I'm quite well aware that feminists think all problems in the world stem from patriarchal gender norms, except for all the problems which explicitly don't or which they've had a hand in creating. Again, you haven't substantiated your claims. You've merely assumed they're true and then lashed out for what amounts, in your mind, to "speaking heresy."   And my point is that the notion that patriarchy benefits men at the expense of women, if true, would mean that by Bayes' theorem, any male disprivilege is evidence against the existence of patriarchy, not something you can sweep under the rug by assuming patriarchy's existence to explain it away as you please. 
 Oh, and also for the record, anyone wearing shoes with white soles...look like they belong behind the counter of a McDonalds. Nothing screams juvenile and trashy more....Sorry, but it needed to be said.   It's true what they say...Money can't buy taste, style or class. That's the only way to explain their popularity.  >You're entitled to your opinion.  Sure, you can pretend to be an authority on style here, but just letting you know that the grown-up crowd has a taste quite contrary to what you've espoused here.  [SEP] >the grown-up crowd  Condescending much?
We're engaging in an absurd discussion, somehow because I wanted to prove you wrong. There's no need to back anything in an opinion forum, particularly something which is one Google search away. People may ask for proofs, but in practice it's useless, because even if you provide them, proving your assertion true, they react emotionally, not rationally. Proof: see above. [SEP] There's no need, but it only helps your argument. Many people who don't provide evidence/sources to back up claims are those who spread disinformation, people will associate you with them rightly or wrongly, assuming there's no evidence which is why you said to look it up yourself, and so don't think there's any point to a needless Google. By providing sources, you make it easier for people to become convinced of your view with less effort on their part. People are lazy, tell them to look it up and they won't :)  > react emotionally  I was trying to give neutral advice originally, I recognise I've come across a little condescending/jerky in that and later posts, sorry for that :/
Holy shit so freaking toxic, you were complaining about something you had no knowledge about so i corrected you. And now you call me autistic? I wasnt being rude at all i only said if you are going to have such strong opinions about 1 thing in a game then atleast research it before you complain about. [SEP] >Actually fallout 4 does not have loading screens for buildings and caves Todd already confirmed that. If you are going to have such strong opinions about a thing like this you should really do your research.  That's what you originally wrote. You weren't even referencing anything I ACTUALLY said about Fallout 3/NV and Skyrim. I made no claims about Fallout 4. Then you wrote this:  >I wasnt being rude at all i only said if you are going to have such strong opinions about 1 thing in a game then atleast research it before you complain about.  The fact that you had to rephrase it to make it not seem rude is telling. And if you can't tell the difference in tone between the two quotations above, that just confirms your autism. You were rude and condescending, that's not a matter of debate.
Yes, what you're missing is an accurate perspective on Americanization and the harm that it does globally. Good day simplejack [SEP] Since when is helping countries strengthen their power infrastructure equivalent to "Americanization"?   >Good day simplejack.  Are you that insecure with what you're saying that you need to end with an insult? Being condescending only makes you look like a jackass.
It's called a defense mechanism. When you've been hurt so many times, you lower expectations so if the hurt happens again...you don't quite feel it as much. You clearly haven't been a diehard fan a long time, if at all.  Inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist. Give it time. You'll understand. You know how you know you bleed purple and gold? Because we've bleed so many times. Yet we still cheer.   Realistic expectations of this game were we were going to lose.  Realistic expectations of this season was getting into the playoffs as a wildcard.   Realistically Blair Walsh missed several extra points this year. It's realistic to expect he may miss at that distance. And he did.  Sure we were in this game and really should have won, but did you expect to go to the super bowl? Not hope. Expect. We are optimistic as fuck. What do we always say? Every fucking year we say this. Not just on reddit. IRL. "Next year, we will do better."  Why even watch the game? Because we are diehards even though we have been hurt a lot by hope. And that's all we have is hope. Yet we still hope. Don't mistake being jaded as not being a diehard.   We know we are a good team, but you need a great and fantastic team to win a championship. Your fuck your fandom attitude is worse than pessimism. Being a Vikings fan isn't about one year. It isn't about 2 or 5 years. It's about every year. You'll learn that when you grow up.  Edit: Realistically we didn't have any offense when we first faced them. No injuries on offense. We didn't have any offense this game either. WEIRD [SEP] > You clearly haven't been a diehard fan a long time, if at all.  I actually believe in my team so I must not be a real diehard fan.... Lol. Keep trying to justify your pessimism, you must have a miserable life. I'm not going to be pulled into an Internet pissing contest on who has been a fan longer, but unless you remember the 70s, my hopes have been crushed just as many times as yours have. But guess what? Each time I (eventually) let it go and try to enjoy the next year. I truly believed that we were a good team this year (which we fucking were) and not only thought that we were going to beat Seattle, I even thought that we could make it to the SB. Shocking I know. I'm obviously not a real fan if I even considered that, right?   Who are the real diehard fans? The ones that all but give up on their team before they even play the game or the ones who believe in their team until the very last second? Among my coworkers and friends, I can comfortably say that the fans who actually watched every game this year had at least some confidence against Seattle while the casual fans would consistently say "We're screwed." You're obviously in the latter.  >It isn't about 2 or 5 years. It's about every year. You'll learn that when you grow up  Again with this condescending bullshit. Each year IS a new year. I've felt that way my whole life (with a few exceptions...). Yes, it's sad now but next year I will still believe in my team. Especially if we upgrade our offense even a tiny bit.  How about you listen to Zimmer's response in the post-game to a "same old Vikings" question and see what he said? He said it was nonsense and moved right onto the next question. Because it's superstitious bullshit.    >Edit: Realistically we didn't have any offense when we first faced them. No injuries on offense. We didn't have any offense this game either. WEIRD  AP only got 8 carries because we abandoned the run early due playing from behind due to .... Wait for it ... Injuries on defense!  WEIRD indeed. I would assume a "true diehard fan" would know this.   And our offense played well enough against the best defense in the league to put us in a position where we should have won, btw. You obviously didn't notice that because you're so focused on that last kick. A "real diehard fan" would have noticed that. 
Firstly, this is BadPhilosophy, simplifications are to be expected. Secondly, look at the annual salaries of CEOs and then compare them to the workers; the general point still stands. If you've capital, you are at liberty to obtain far more of the value produced than if you're forced to rent yourselves to the owners of capital. Working is an integral part of earning as a worker, but not as a capitalist. Merely owning a certain amount of capital is enough to guarantee a continual, and expanding, income.   >you don't like capitalism.  Lol imagine liking that shit wtf [SEP] > Firstly, this is BadPhilosophy, simplifications are to be expected  Glance through the list of mods. Look at one of the stickied posts on this sub. Go back about four years and read the comments. Then come back and try to condescend to me about this sub.  >Secondly, look at the annual salaries of CEOs and then compare them to the workers; the general point still stands.  Seems unlikely, as those aren't statistically significant...  But anyhow, the point absolutely does not stand when we take housing into account. It's complete fiction unsupported by the data.
All we know is he was fired for this, and IMO the manager would be well within their rights to fire him on the spot for a stunt like this, for a million different reasons. Can you have a manager that would keep someone around for something like this? Sure. The manager weighed the risks of keeping the kid vs the gain from keeping him, and said it was too much, and decided to get someone else.  The world isn't black and white here. This was probably just the straw that broke the camel's back. [SEP] >IMO the manager would be well within their rights to fire him on the spot for a stunt like this  Nobody was arguing what "rights" the manager had.   >an you have a manager that would keep someone around for something like this? Sure.  That's what I've been saying. MY OPINION IS AND HAS BEEN THAT THE MANAGER'S DECISION WAS EXCESSIVE AND NOT NECESSARY. IT WAS NEVER MY CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD NO RIGHT TO FOLLOW THE COURSE OF ACTION HE/SHE DID  I do apologize if that sounds condescending but given you just stated what I was saying with ever post, I thought I needed to make it more obvious. Thanks for the this conversation, though. 
You realize that Tempo Mage is a thing, right? I don't understand why you're being so combative over a bland, obvious statement. The coin alone triggers Mana Wyrm. The reason why Undertaker was overpowered was because it gained health, not because it was easier to trigger than Mana Wyrm. Am I complaining about the power level? No. Calm down there fella. [SEP] > You realize that Tempo Mage is a thing, right?   yes, and neither tempo mage nor undertaker hunter relied on the respective minions in order to do well.  > I don't understand why you're being so combative over a bland, obvious statement.  This was literally my first comment in this thread, what are you talking about?  > At best case, let's say you coin out two Undertakers on turn 1, then play two Leper Gnomes on turn two.  You're example itself is wrong, the undertakers would have 3 attack. And no, the best case scenario is two undertakers and 2 zombie chows. So two 3/2s and two 2/3s, which is the main reason that early undertaker deck ran double chow.  > With Mana Wyrm, I can have a 3/3, a 2/3, and two 0/2 taunts along with 3 random damage to your board on turn 2. It's easier to trigger  Undertaker hunter revolved around low cost deathrattle minions. There are multiple different combinations to have two 3/2s out on turn two. Webspinner, leper gnome, zombie chow. Not to mention the plethora of other 2 minion deathrattles in the deck  > Am I complaining about the power level? No. Calm down there fella.  Any reason you feel like being such a condescending ass when all I did was reply to your comment?
The only thing I learned reading this is that I shouldn't bother to read your comments.   You're hitting the most pathetic and main stream ideas that could be summed up in 6 words or less. Look at ALL of what he has said because you haven't based on what you wrote. Literally the first thing when I googled "Bernie sanders police" was this:   http   The four points?  1. ALL in custody deaths are AUTOMATIC USAG investigations  2. cops are held to the EXACT same standard as citizens  3. demilitarize  4. diverse police departments  Here are the problems that don't take a mind at all to present:  1. Who the fuck pays for that? The AG is already overworked and only takes them when it's DIRE. WHY the AG only? Because no reasons.   2. Good-bye policing. This is literally impossible to do and still have a function law enforcement group. Police can't put hands on you to arrest you since EXACT SAME STANDARD, right? Right.   3. Let's take away long guns (the obvious preferred firearm for anything ever) and protective equipment while we don't limit civilian ownership of ANY of it. You know how LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE? When the police are outgeared.   4. Kinda hard when you have VERIFIED statistics from departments out East that showed departments didn't receive many minority applications and when they did, almost all of them were disqualified for CRIMINAL HISTORY.   ____  TLDR: Learn before you speak.  [SEP] It must be hard for you to have a discussion without being a jerk in some way. I'll make sure to remember that.  > ALL in custody deaths are AUTOMATIC USAG investigations  A bit far? Sure. Is it radical? No. Could this be done at a state level? sure. Is it really that big of a deal? No.  > cops are held to the EXACT same standard as citizens  If you'd learn to read, you would have noticed this was about officers who break the law. Meaning, if an officer breaks the law, they should receive no more special treatment than any other public servant who breaks the law. And if you're going to try and tell me that there haven't been officers who have received special treatment, well good luck with that.  > demilitarize  While I don't think police departments having the equipment they have is a bad thing, this is an issue that stems from the overspending in the Department of Defense, which is the real issue. In terms of his view specifically about police militarization, I disagree with him. As I've made very clear.  > diverse police departments  He wants police departments to reflect the communities they serve. Oh wow, such a radical ideology. Call me when he tries to implement an Affirmative Action law for police hiring.  > Who the fuck pays for that? The AG is already overworked and only takes them when it's DIRE. WHY the AG only? Because no reasons.  Because it's such a radical thought to think that maybe the AG will receive more funding and manpower if given this responsibility. Do I think having the AG be the investigator for all custody related deaths is the most practical solution? No. Is it the worst idea in the world? No.  > Good-bye policing. This is literally impossible to do and still have a function law enforcement group. Police can't put hands on you to arrest you since EXACT SAME STANDARD, right? Right.  See above, and learn to read the very article you posted. The entire point was about making sure police officers who abuse their authority and power didn't receive any special treatment during a trial/sentencing  > Let's take away long guns (the obvious preferred firearm for anything ever) and protective equipment while we don't limit civilian ownership of ANY of it. You know how LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE? When the police are outgeared.  Because that's the only kind of equipment that can be talked about when talking about demilitarization of police, right?  > Kinda hard when you have VERIFIED statistics from departments out East that showed departments didn't receive many minority applications and when they did, almost all of them were disqualified for CRIMINAL HISTORY.  Sure. Never claimed otherwise, nor did Sanders in the article you posted. Like I said, it was more of an ideological aspiration than anything else. Talk about making a big deal out of nothing  TLDR: Being condescended doesn't make you smarter, and you undercut yourself when you can't even correctly read the very article you posted.
It's faster but there's a pretty huge tradeoff. Hideous sprawling suburbs, much less energy efficient, unwalkable cities, etc. But really, we screwed the pooch back in the 50s when we collectively decided that cars were the greatest thing ever so let's build EVERYTHING around the assumption that everyone wants to drive everywhere. Can't be fixed now without something like a war that destroys 90% of our infrastructure. However I suspect that being Americans if this happened we'd build it all back just as sprawling, ugly, and unwalkable. [SEP] > Hideous sprawling suburbs  Opponents of sprawl would do well to stop making this argument. Many many people prefer the aesthetics of a low density environment to a high density one. It comes across as arrogant and closeminded.   I would love to see us build denser more walkable environments. Unfortunately, many of the people advocating for that have this nasty habit of alienating others with condescending comments about their lifestyles. Making it into an argument about aesthetics, when many people will strongly disagree with your aesthetic assessment, is just not going to help anybody. 
Yes, have you watched any of the videos? The people saying it are saying Fuck Her Right in the Pussy.  They aren't saying I want to , or I am going to and they aren't even looking at the reporter but into the camera.  Fucking isn't raping. You need to go to a sex ed class or get laid.  I have asked my wife and showed her the video and she just rolled her eyes.  It's stupid, but there is always going to be stupid people doing stupid things.   http   They are even doing it in foreign language interviews.  The fact that the reporters are trying to make it a personal thing is beyond ridiculous.   [SEP] I'll repeat myself, yet again.  "FUCK HER right in the PUSSY" is a literal command to rape the newscaster. If you're confusing fucking and raping, you are a sociopath.  1) To fuck without consent is rape. Clearly there is no consent. It is impossible to walk up to a woman you don't know and fuck her without raping her. 2) "Fuck" in this case is used as an imperative. A command. Again, without consent, it is rape. 3) "her" is referring to the female reporter trying to do her job. 4) and the rest, well a bunch of nasty gender stuff. "Literally", in this case is used, correctly.  >The fact that the reporters are trying to make it a personal thing is beyond ridiculous.  More mansplaining... This is my last reply to you, you're not listening to me and I'm wasting my time...   It IS a personal thing. Imagine trying to do your job, some dude screams into your face, "rape her", a primal fear, and they continuing to do your job as professionally as possible.  This is an assault, pure and simple.
> Advocate for basic income, welfare, housing for homeless people.  I vote Democrat down the ticket. Done.   > If there are people begging for money in the street and you can afford it give them some money.  How much money? Would it be more efficient to stand on a corner holding a sign saying "Free Cash To Anyone Who Needs It". That way, they can just come to me.   > Give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming everyone who asks for help is just out to get out your well deserved hard earned cash.  You just told me in another thread that they are out to get my cash by whatever means necessary. You can't have it both ways.   While we're talking about it, I'm having some problems making rent this month. I just got laid off, and my medical bills are through the roof. Can you PayPal me some money? I mean, assuming you're not an elitist asshole, of course.  [SEP] 1. Democrats have done very little to help people in poverty. One of the reasons Trump won. Hopefully that is about to change but only if we fight for it. Don't just assume it will. Get involved politicaly to make sure it does.   2. Don't be a dick. I'm not saying you have to give money to everyone who come accross. But I am asking to acknowledge the reality of the poverty our system has created and that if you have 5 buck to spare and someone is walking up and down the streets asking for it take the 5 bucks you were going to blow on beer anyway and temporarily aid the suffering of a fellow human. Give him the benefit of the doubt and don't be a selfish prick about it.   >You just told me in another thread that they are out to get my cash by whatever means necessary. You can't have it both ways.   Actually that's not what I said at all. But thanks for reading everything I write in the most assholish biased way possible. What I said was that just because you saw one guy who was holding a sign for bus fair and was lying about it A: Doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him knowledgeable of the fact that people won't help him if he doesn't say he needs the money for anything more than food and bus fair. It doesn't mean he doesn't need it it means our society doesn't give two shits about him unless that's what he says. B: Just because you saw one person who does this does not mean you should assume that every single homeless person asking for money is doing this. You should give them the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that they're all lying swindlers to make yourself feel better about spending the 5 dollars on beer when you just passed a person who lives on the sidwalk who maybe really needed the money.  >While we're talking about it, I'm having some problems making rent this month. I just got laid off, and my medical bills are through the roof. Can you PayPal me some money? I mean, assuming you're not an elitist asshole, of course.   No but I can tell you to advocate for basic income, universal healthcare and if you need it feel free to ask people. I only hope people aren't as condescending and dismissive to you as you are to others.
>Oh, please. The average consumer can't realistically trace the supply chain on one thing they buy, much less everything.  Right, but they can do simple things like investigating the track records of a company or researching a topic to better know what they need for their problem. You don't ask the car salesman which vehicle you should buy.  >No, it doesn't, and it will misalign to ever greater degrees as information asymmetry and manipulation techniques continue to develop.  What, pray tell, do you get paid for then? I don't care how much you advertise to me, I don't need your test prep services, regardless of how shady your former company was. I bought my laptop because I needed one. I shopped for one that best suited my needs at the best price. Same for my condo, my furniture, the services I purchase daily, my wifi, and my food. The odd time some advertising may make me aware of a product I didn't know existed. I don't buy it willy nilly.  >That's such a dodgey non-answer. If someone took shortcuts that hurt you or a loved one badly, I don't think you'd be shrugging off blatant immorality so easily  I meant it seriously. The great thing about living in a country like ours (I live in Canada, still a free, western democracy) is that you can do pretty much whatever you want. I just don't think other people should obligated to pay for any poor choices that you may make. But if working in a lower paying profession for greater personal satisfaction is what makes you happy, I sincerely advise you to do so. Besides, blatant personal or corporate negligence is against the law. I don't think anyone advocates for a lawless society, besides ancaps and hardcore socialists  >No, you very obviously are not. If your mom drank while she was pregnant with you, or someone fucked up and leeched lead into your water supply, or your town got blown up by a civil war, or you were born with some crippling genetic condition, or any number of other things, you're going to be put in a shitty place through absolutely no fault of your own  This is a minority of circumstances. Still part of the hand you're dealt, though. You can simply look at the Jews if you want a to find a group of people that excels at overcoming hurdles not of their own making. Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against negligence.  >Perfect! Then there shouldn't be so much objection to taxes and/or wealth redistribution, since billionaires will surely recognize that Christmas doesn't come from a store.  Besides the fact you're taking something form them that they likely worked very hard for?   >Less sarcastically: money does buy happiness, especially if you're poor. Money is necessary for good health, since you need to afford good food, get good medical care, etc. Money is necessary for safety, because it's what gets you out of shitty, dangerous neighborhoods and pays for someone to guard your community. And money is necessary for happiness, because no one is happy when they're stressing out over how to pay a bill every week.  Studies show that no, money doesn't increase happiness past a certain point, I concede that. But I don't think the answer is to give people stuff. Again, I'm not against basic welfare, but we shouldn't just give people stuff. In fact, I'm more in favor of programs that provide the tools necessary for poor people to pull themselves out of poverty. Things like means tested college subsidization. Actually, I recently read that the way the UK has been conducting their secondary schooling has been working well, although I haven't looked into it to a great extent yet.  >I'm sure not every one of them is, but it sure seems like a disproportionate percentage.  Wanting to make money doesn't make you evil  >I do, precisely because I focus on providing actual value and making the world a better place, as opposed to just spamming whatever incentive structure is in front of me 24/7. I do provide disproportionate value - the people I'm talking about, as a rule, do not, and often provide actively negative value. Willingness to exploit is not merit.  The problem is, this is your opinion. Markets allow everyone to vote on these things with their money. I know you'll probably make a statement about manipulation, so see my first little blurb. I will say that you sound like a person that genuinely wants to help people, and that you'd be the kind of person I would want hire to help me for my test prep. Maybe you should put yourself out there more? Advertising isn't always bad, sometimes it makes people aware of a quality product they weren't aware existed.  >If the poorest people in the country got $20k a year, and the richest got $100k, I'd be pretty okay with that world (the obviously non-trivial economics of getting there notwithstanding).  This would absolutely destroy investment. Western countries would have third world economies almost instantly. Why take risks if you can only make $100k a year? Reminds me of this   [SEP] > Right, but they can do simple things like investigating the track records of a company or researching a topic to better know what they need for their problem.  Which works great when you're dealing with a topic that is remotely accessible to you. But it is literally impossible to have even a reasonable understanding of every field with which you interact as an individual in daily life within a human lifespan. And that's assuming you're of pretty high intelligence and good resistance to manipulation, which of course are not true of the vast majority of the population.  > What, pray tell, do you get paid for then?  I get paid for that asymmetry - but unlike my former employer, I do not abuse that asymmetry. When I do my work, it is with what is best for my student in mind, not what is best for my finances.  > I bought my laptop because I needed one. I shopped for one that best suited my needs at the best price. Same for my condo, my furniture, the services I purchase daily, my wifi, and my food.  Ever buy something cheap on sale? Do you always check to see if it got jacked up in price right before the sale? Do you monitor the capacities and prices of everything you buy, so that you notice when they shave half an ounce off but don't change the price? Do you judge your produce by how it looks, and do you check to see if it was bred specifically to look that way at the cost of tasting good? How confident are you in your car's brakes? Have you checked their entire supply chain? Ever look at a Yelp review? Ever checked to see how hard it is to leave bad ones for your competitors? Do you get an itemized bill for every doctor visit and thoroughly research every charge? How about that water you drank earlier, did you test it for contaminants? Would you have any way of knowing if the composition of a plastic bottle changed to include some nasty chemical? Did you research the power strip into which your computer is plugged? Thoroughly look in to the suppliers for the wiring in your home?  It is impossible, as a consumer, to defend yourself against every dirty trick. There's just not enough time in the day. And if you made any decisions about any of the things listed above, you've been a sucker in all probability, because someone, somewhere, cut corners in a way you don't know about.  > The great thing about living in a country like ours (I live in Canada, still a free, western democracy) is that you can do pretty much whatever you want.  Spoken like someone who has never been poor. Also, you live in Canada, and you're going to lecture me - an American - about seeking public healthcare? You might want to see your publicly funded doctor for acute Pot Kettle Black Syndrome.  > I just don't think other people should obligated to pay for any poor choices that you may make.  Lots of people end up poor for reasons other than poor choices. And even if they didn't, you're still better off providing basic quality of life, because that contributes to a stable society around you.   > But if working in a lower paying profession for greater personal satisfaction is what makes you happy, I sincerely advise you to do so.   If it were 40,000 + being a decent person versus 60,000 + selling my soul, I'd choose the first. But the choice I seem to face right now is "poor enough to be regularly suicidal" versus "able to not constantly be terrified of something going wrong".  > Besides, blatant personal or corporate negligence is against the law.  And? It's very, very rare for executives to be prosecuted, short of explicitly telling someone "hey, go commit fraud, you fraudulent fraudster". More often, it's something like "ramp demands up to unreasonable levels, while maintaining standards that are nominally legal in the full knowledge that the people below you have to break those standards in order to keep up, providing you with the desired output and plausible deniability".  That is, of course, assuming they're not just straight bribing the people who write the laws in the first place, which of course they are.  > This is a minority of circumstances.  Is it?  Intelligence is more or less normally distributed and is very heritable. So let's say 20% or so of the population is just dumb in ways they can do nothing about. Another 5-20%, depending on where you draw the line, faces serious job discrimination (whether on the basis of race, sexuality, etc. - in some jurisdictions this is illegal, but it's impossible to prove in most cases). Another decent chunk, maybe 10% or so, suffers from serious health problems. At the upper end of these estimates, you're going to get a majority in the wealthiest, stablest nations on earth who are dealing with those circumstances, and the situation is far worse in the developing world.  > You can simply look at the Jews if you want a to find a group of people that excels at overcoming hurdles not of their own making.  I mean, I'd say Israel is pretty much the geopolitical poster child for the sort of "win at all costs" shit I'm taking issue with. They absolutely play dirty, and they absolutely hurt plenty of people in the process.  > Besides the fact you're taking something form them that they likely worked very hard for?   Again, I simply do not see any reason whatsoever to believe your average CEO works harder than your average minimum-wage worker, or that your average middle-class guy in the first world works harder than a third-world sweatshop worker. The distribution of wealth is so obviously, blatantly not correlated with any sort of ethic that I cannot believe this claim even gets made.  > But I don't think the answer is to give people stuff. Again, I'm not against basic welfare, but we shouldn't just give people stuff.  ...welfare by definition is giving people stuff.  > In fact, I'm more in favor of programs that provide the tools necessary for poor people to pull themselves out of poverty.  I think I'm going to have to leave this conversation. The level of entitled "well if everyone else just worked hard" here is disgusting.  > Wanting to make money doesn't make you evil  Being willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get it does.  > Markets allow everyone to vote on these things with their money.   Look at who is President right now, and tell me people are good at judging the best guy for the job. Go ahead, I'll wait.  > Maybe you should put yourself out there more?  Oh, I should just put myself out there more! Gee, why didn't I think of that, you condescending...yeah, no, I'm done with this discussion. You're so goddamn smug, so invested in thinking that if you're doing okay it's because you deserve it, that you just can't allow the idea that good people work hard and get nothing but crushed for it into your worldview.  > Advertising isn't always bad, sometimes it makes people aware of a quality product they weren't aware existed.  Yes, but advertising without lying just gets you out-competed. I do advertise, but I don't over-promise and I don't manipulate, so nobody listens.
It's not that we turn our noses up at velcro. It's that velcro/nylon belts aren't legal in competition.   If I'm going to spend money on a belt and I know I'm competing down the road, I wouldn't want to buy two belts. Also, I'd be concerned about the amount of pressure I could feasibly produce without the velcro giving out.   But you do you, babe! The fact that you are doing something is awesome! [SEP] > But you do you, babe! The fact that you are doing something is awesome!  That is the most condescending comment I've ever had directed at me on reddit. But you do you, babe! The fact that you are commenting at all is awesome!  See what I mean?  I couldn't find any leather 3" options that weren't tapered at the time I bought it, and also didn't have any plans to compete back then. Definitely would have gone with this leather option if I'd known of it, but fortunately the Spud belt has performed wonderfully so far, so I do consider it a good option for new lifters not planning to compete and on a budget :)
>Why marry the two concepts at all? What's the justification for creating a gendered aspect? Obviously toxic men and women exist, as violent men and child-abusing women amply demonstrate.  Aka "people have been explaining to me what toxic masculinity means a hundred times but I still don't understand what words mean"   >But why gender toxicity? It should go without saying that any differences between the types of violence committed by toxic individuals of both sexes is best explained by women's vastly weaker upper body strength and consequent relative difficulty in causing injury to adults.  Delete this thread and feel ashamed for still not even knowing the basics of what toxic masculinity is about.  "only gay men read" is toxic masculinity, not caring about reading isn't.   "only faggots eat vegetables" is toxic masculinity, preferring meat over vegetables isn't.  "real men don't cry" is toxic masculinity, having control of your feelings isn't.  Toxic masculinity refers to harmful constructions of masculinity in society.  Why are critics of toxic masculinity literally incapable of understanding these simple definitions or even just anything that's slightly nuanced?  But to answer your question: because we think that men being discouraged from going to the doctor or therapy, but encouraged to risk their life and to be aggressive is harmful to them.  [SEP] > Aka "people have been explaining to me what toxic masculinity means a hundred times but I still don't understand what words mean"   You of all people are not really in the position to be snarky and/or condescending when it comes to schooling people for their (presumed) lack of insight. 
Just put the pipe down and walk away while you still got a little bit of dignity. [SEP] > Just put the pipe down and walk away while you still got a little bit of dignity.  Dude... Down voting the guy? Being rude?   It's a fact that people from around the world have had similar experiences with "entities" on psychedelics... Whether this is some true contact with another dimension or the ramblings of a hippie it's really not necessary to get all condescending.
I mentioned that black was historically better a while back, which is true, and yet I got downvoted to hell by the colored vinyl tourists that roam here. It's nice to see someone else getting upvoted for saying the same exact thing.   Maybe it's cuz you are right and not being a "dick" which is practically an impossible feat to accomplish here. Being right about anything, especially if you are correcting the OP pretty much equates to you being a giant dickhole. [SEP] > "Colored vinyl tourists"  Good lord. Can you be a little more pompous, king of the hipsters? Maybe they just downvoted you for being coming off as a condescending ponce and not on the factual basis of your answer.
1. Football is subjective. If a fan is not looking at the bigger picture from what Mourinho is doing, they're not really worth knowing their opinion. As for the whole "flirting with PSG", we have no evidence other than alleged reports from journalists. And if I recall correctly, when all that came out, Mourinho was very quick to point out he plans to be here next season.  2. Martial started out very well but has suffered injuries. Rashford was our most started player. At what point do you blame the manager for the fact those players are 2 completely different individuals who control themselves?  3. No there isn't. Only the media and people who hate the club want this to happen. There's absolutely zero evidence there are any rifts or fractures within the United dressing room currently.  4. Does that mean that they could come and do it here successfully? Could Guardiola go to a league 2 side and do the same thing as at City? And are they even available? Stability is key to building something great and if you keep switching managers, you end up like Chelsea, whose board are scared of giving any particularly large amount of cash to improve the team because they know the manager could be gone by next season.  >Now both sides of the argument have plenty of merit.  Perhaps, but certainly none of your points do.  >The thing is Mourinho has not done a bad job, but he has not done a great job either, and hence divides opinion.   Subjective.  >Yet the problem is that there are a lot of fans on this sub who refuse to admit that these are genuine grievances and get personal whenever anyone criticises Mourinho.   That's because they're unsubstantiated claims about dressing room fractures, expectations that our manager should be SAF 2.0, should play like SAF, should somehow make every player world class and consequently win everything. When someone actually presents me an argument that isn't completely speculative in nature or ignores rather blatantly obvious factors, maybe I'll consider it.  [SEP] >If a fan is not looking at the bigger picture from what Mourinho is doing, they're not really worth knowing their opinion  This kind of patronising and condescending attitude is exactly what I was talking about, when I said there are people who support Mourinho who refuse to accept genuine concerns and get needlessly personal. This is how you end up polarising the fanbase when you start insulting people you disagree with.  Every supporters' opinion is worth what it is. Just because you disagree, it does not make their opinion any less worthwhile.  FWIW, Mourinho's biggest critic has included the likes of Sir Bobby Charlton. Do you think his opinion is worthless?    
Well, how you feel about it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Europe doesn't need a big military because we got their back. Japan doesn't have an army at all. If they can spend less because of our bases in their country then we have subsidized their defense. That's pretty straight forward.  [SEP] > Well, how you feel about it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Europe doesn't need a big military because we got their back.   What nonsense. Even if this were true, which it isn't, and even if the US was "defending" western Europe against someone (who?), it is condescending and insulting to every European that the US thinks of itself as doing something useful in Europe rather than just sending its military men to local malls to spend US dollars.
When you mock individual Mormons, how do you think that makes them feel about ex-Mormons?  You've been hurt, and I'm sorry about that. You shouldn't have been. But when you hit back, it perpetuates the cycle. The more you hate Mormons, the more they will hate the other ex-Mormons in their life.  Think about the next teenager who decides he doesn't believe in the Church. If you've spent years mocking and deriding his parents for their beliefs, how easy is that transition going to be for him? Are they going to be kind, or are they going to say--as you are saying--that their pain entitles them to inflict pain on others?  I can't force you to be kind. But I can promise you that it will make things better for both you and us. [SEP] >When you mock individual Mormons, how do you think that makes them feel about ex-Mormons?  I'm neither a Mormon nor an ex-Mormon, just someone who dislikes religion and likes helping people leave it.  >But when you hit back, it perpetuates the cycle.  Disagree, again. Hitting back only 'perpetuates the cycle' if you don't hit hard enough.   >The more you hate Mormons, the more they will hate the other ex-Mormons in their life.  First off, who's talking about hating Mormons? I've never met a Mormon I even disliked, let alone hated. I fought alongside Mormons for years; don't lecture me about how I hate Mormons, you condescending prick. If I hated Mormons, I wouldn't be opposed to Mormonism, I'd amusedly look on as it robs you of your money and your dignity. I hate Mormonism because I've loved the Mormons I've met so much. They deserve better. Frankly, you should re-think your argument here anyway. Mormons treating ex-Mormons poorly doesn't help Mormonism, it makes even more people leave the church.  Edit: Just pointing out; you're the person who started this comment thread with the implication that you were wrong for not considering all ex-Mormons, and I quote, "assholes." I LOVE the irony, believe me, it is delicious.  >If you've spent years mocking and deriding his parents for their beliefs,  People are not beliefs. I have a lot of doubtless stupid and mock-able beliefs too, but they aren't me. You can't separate making fun of a ridiculous bullshit story someone tells (this thread) and making fun of the person himself (not this thread.)  >Are they going to be kind  You're telling me that the moral responsibility of parents who decide to disown their children because a con man made up a religion to get laid rests on me for making fun of utterly nonsensical bullshit on the internet? I am unconvinced.  >But I can promise you that it will make things better for both you and us.  I kind of doubt it, frankly. You'd like me to be kind (i.e. quiet) and we can all just do our thing in peace, huh? I have a problem with your "thing," though; I think it's a parasitic cult. Not going to pass up opportunities to mention that, sorry.  Again: you can hang out in threads like this twisting up your panties, or you can go back to /r/latterdaysaints or literally any other sub.
Low elo mindsets.. Yes, leo/draven can be really strong in lane, so can draven/anything else (thresh+blitz+draven>leona). Thing is, draven doesnt need a strong lane sup to pop off, he needs mid/lategame utility to not get dove 24/7  Tldr: its only good if you get to roam>win early, else, no ps: leo just works better with abilities- based -AD (casters)   [SEP] >Low elo mindsets..  get off your horse. showing your ass and being condescending won't convince anyone of shit, and only makes you look like more of an ass.  >draven doesnt need a strong lane sup to pop off, he needs mid/lategame utility to not get dove 24/7  leona provides this in the form of low cooldown CC. depending on the team comp, you can still peel for draven and give him the time to do damage.  draven doesn't NEED a strong laning phase in order to perform his function, but champions like leona and blitzcrank exemplify his strong points and typically have enough utility to help him survive mid and late game. there is no reason why they could not perform the same function that peel / warden supports give him. utility and warden champions perform better with hypercarries because they give them the space to do their job, whereas it's not as important to draven's late game since you'd want them to already be at a severe disadvantage.
First off, while I won't feel offended by mild abuse from some internet stranger, I still think it'd be nice if you were to tone down your language a wee bit.  As for the points you raise, yes, they're good, but I feel you have kind of the wrong perspective on them. Reddit also has subreddits for a reason, and a mod-system.  Furthermore, that there is no [dog stories from missouri] should tell you something. But even if it were hugely popular, and your submission the most interesting one ever, it still wouldn't belong into [worldnews].  Try finding a more appropriate subreddit, or create one or, if all else fails, submit it to the main reddit.  Lastly, what you read in this thread is no circle jerk, it's a voluntary service offered to you and others directed here. The alternative'd be silently disappearing the spam. [SEP] >First off, while I won't feel offended by mild abuse from some internet stranger, I still think it'd be nice if you were to tone down your language a wee bit.  A condescending cunt at that.
I agree with everything you say until you mentioned the last thing. Tell me one multiplayer game that doesn't require you to make sacrifices or time investments. You have no right to complain about not getting an EX pass if you don't want to put in commitments into the game. The issue with the EX raid system is primarily that people that DO make the sacrifices to try to obtain one don't, and then casuals that couldn't give a damn about the game get one and sometimes don't even bother to go to the raid at all. Someones gold is another mans trash apparently.   What us "hardcore" players want is the opportunity to get a Mewtwo when we meet all the requirements and raid heavily at gyms our communities have agreed upon to raid at. No one that wants one badly enjoys seeing someone that is completely clueless about what an EX pass is getting one, and worst of all, seeing them say they aren't going to attend.   To answer your question though - I sometimes get really invested into trying to get a pass. I'll raid like crazy at gyms I know can get one. I'll keep that gym blue as much as I can despite being Gold. I think it's come to the point where trying to get a pass does keep me interested and raises my competitiveness to keep gyms blue for my team, even though I'm already gold.   When a wave gets sent out and I don't get one, it seriously does make me want to quit the game for awhile. I've already decided that I'm done spending money on this game until I get my EX pass.  My overall point is I completely agree the EX system is shit, but some of the whining about it is just dumb. People ARE out there willing to make those sacrifices to get their Mewtwo, so seeing people get one and then complain about it is a bit discouraging to those that fund the game. [SEP] > Tell me one multiplayer game that doesn't require you to make sacrifices or time investments.   Okay, I can't think of any that don't require you to make a time sacrifice, but YOU tell me another multiplayer game that dictates when you have to play it.   Seriously, do you have to be so condescending? At leas understand my points if you're gonna be like that. 
Why are we wasting time with Ghazi? Seriously, all they do is troll and be retarded on purpose. Plus they always reek of this pathetic air of fedora-tier condescension as if they're above us somehow. [SEP] > Plus they always reek of this pathetic air of fedora-tier condescension as if they're above us somehow.  It's amazing how you can say that, condescendingly entirely based on a type of hat.  I'm not even joking, But the level of self awareness in this subreddit it bloody dwindling and it's doing my head in. I support the merit of GamerGate, but really? Complaining about condescension whilst being condescending? really? is that where we're at now?
> I was interested to see what that essay had to say, but opening up with an accusation of being "brainwashed" is a real turn-off.  D'aww, feelings hurt, perfect reason to avoid reading arguments.  edit: and bring on the downvotes. All i'm pointing out that it's a bit easy to say "I didn't like the opening sentence, so I left". It's basically "no you're wrong!". I'm not saying the article is gospel, that every argument the article makes is valid, but dismissing it entirely just from the opening sentence is pretty easy. [SEP] > All i'm pointing out that it's a bit easy to say "I didn't like the opening sentence, so I left".  This isn't a debate team. We're not required to cooly listen to and respond to all arguments, no matter how uncivil. Someone being a dickish blowhard is actually a very good reason to not listen to them.   Likewise, if someone is offensively dismissive or condescending towards opposing arguments, it tends to show that they are either (a) not arguing in good faith or (b) aren't able to understand the other side.  Either way, it's a good way of signaling that someone's arguments aren't worth reading. 
> Over nearly a decade participating here, I believe I've heard every possible argument and non-argument for theism.  Ok, look, you don’t strike me as being unreasonable or hostile. Yet surely you see my point in this sentiment alone, right?  If you believe you’ve seen every argument theism has to offer, why are you here? [SEP]  >If you believe you’ve seen every argument theism has to offer, why are you here?  Now you've hit upon a slightly more original theme! Your original post's theme ("do you know this forum comes across as mean\condescending?" friendly, verbose, defensive, dismissive variant #2) is posted here more than once a week on average.  Your new question of "Why do you atheists even post here?" is more rare, appearing roughly two to three times a month. Sadly, the most recent one was just a couple days back and as I recall, got a ton of excellent and varied replies conveying the spectrum of motivations found across our little tribe. May I refer you to scroll back and read those? The top posts there express my own thoughts better than I could myself.
What wars was she proposing? What about NAFTA specifically did people hate? Or was it just the name? Similar to TPP, because I see a lot of people claim how bad TPP is and very few of them can tell me anything about what it does, they just know they don't like it. She also wanted limited fracking done after strict safety regulations are in place, which most people also don't understand the details of fracking either.   I think a lot of those became buzz words, people who supported Sanders began to support everything that he did and that became the new standard that everyone had to meet, even if the voter didn't know anything about most positions. You can't make everything black and white, Sanders has been wrong before and he will be wrong again.  [SEP] > I think a lot of those became buzz words, people who supported Sanders began to support everything that he did and that became the new standard that everyone had to meet  That's the kind of ignorantly dismissive and condescending attitude I saw from Clinton supporters from the past year and it's clear that attitude was shared by the candidate. These are issues that were impacting people's lives before Sanders came along.   You really should know where Clinton wanted to expand bombing and send more ground troops if you voted for her. Google her American Legion speech and her speech after the Paris bombing.
There's a pretty good deal of this so full of condescension and derision that I'm not going to even bother to respond to it. As for the rest of it, I'll do it out of good faith in the hope you can find it within yourself to not vote like the asshole you are to strangers on the internet.    I'm going to start with food stamps. They feed poor people. It is literally government money going to feed people so poor they cannot afford food. You can't even buy enough to live with it, it's so little. I don't want to pull the "you hate poor people" card, because that's putting words in your mouth, but when you say you think that food stamps are bad that is... essentially what I'm hearing.    Canadians. I think Canadians are pussies. Not enough of them shoot guns, they're a little too comfortable with their first-world amenities like socialized medicine, and they apologize for everything. What I really hate though, is a fucking Cuban-Canadian pretending to be part of the Latino community in Texas, which he isn't, and pretending to be Texan, which he isn't. Ted Cruz is a Canadian whitewashed opportunist, and has proven so many times over.    As for the deficit, this becomes a neutral point if Beto increases government spending. Cruz voted for a tax bill that increases the deficit by cutting government revenue so he could give money to the wealthy (as Econ 101 will tell you, this doesn't fucking work) and if Beto is pro-spending he is also pro-taxes. Which I guess is a con. I don't know, I prefer a government with enough funds to offer a competitive wage in the labor market, so our bureaucrats aren't the dumbest slackjawed idiots they could find to take $8 an hour to desk jockey.    With regards to your retirement plan, congratulations. You're wealthy enough to actually have one, which is usually a pretty good start on most people. And you also have the means to run it yourself, which is also pretty good. Again, congrats. While I will add that stock fraud and/or a market crash will do exactly the same thing to your retirement as everyone else's, that is, make it disappear, I'm just gonna let that lie. The trouble with your invincible retirement letting you say "fuck everyone else, I'm fine", is that it doesn't really work that way. See, all those idiots who can't plan are going to get old and run out of money. And then they're going to ask for entitlement spending from your government. And you know who votes? Old people. Which means legions of entitled old people will march to the polls to take your hard-earned money away from you in exponentially greater numbers if we don't figure out what the hell to do for them.    Now, lets move on to Harvey. Most people can agree this was pretty bad. Most people can also agree it was pretty bad not to tell people in Katy whose houses flooded that their houses were build on a fucking flood plain. I don't live there, but for those who did that was pretty fucking dirty. To stop that from becoming a regular occurrence, we're going to need new infrastructure. Things like actually building emergency flood drainage, planning our city as we build it, and... maybe disclosing floodwater levels to property buyers. The whole of Houston is a fucking pancake, and this problem is only going to get worse. And frankly, most Republican representatives would rather sit on their own thumb than do anything about it. I'm not really in favor of regulation here, that just distorts markets, but I do think we need flood level disclosure, and no elected Republican will ever do that. Also, you seem like you're not from Houston so I'll explain. The people who got flooded during Harvey weren't required to get flood insurance by the government, because they don't live in a flood prone zone. They live in an area referred to as the "100-year flood plain", which is basically a giant rice paddy that the Addicks reservoir drains into. When Harvey happened, they opened the reservoir into the giant rice paddy - now filled with development - and all the people who hadn't been informed by their real estate agents or the government that they lived in an at-risk area got flooded. Frankly, you shouldn't want to just go and say "fuck poor people" by leaving people who get flooded without government assistance, but in this case it really just wasn't their fault.    Now with regards to the Russia thing. The man literally stood up on international television and said, in a conference with a foreign leader, that he believed the Russians over US intelligence officials. He later 'corrected' his speech with a double negative, but it just... who the fuck makes that mistake? A double negative doesn't even make sense there. He constantly fucking talks about how the Russia investigation is a hoax. If the Russia investigation were a hoax, why the hell would he be talking about it? Did Obama ever talk about the Kenya thing? NO! He never even fucking mentioned it. There have been 32 indictments of Russian agents in that investigation, all of the US intelligence agencies have come forward to say the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, and the President is literally the only person in the room besides Sean Hannity saying otherwise. Hell, with the meeting that DJ Jr had with the Russian officials, he has even ADMITTED that he knew it was the Russians and that he knew it was about information on his opponent. We literally know everything except that he promised them something in exchange for that information. And frankly, when you look at the timing of the meeting and Trump's weird complete change of foreign policy to start praising Putin, it becomes obvious that he did. Either that or he just... organically kissed his ass.   In evaluating any two conflicting stories you look at your sources. For Donald Trump to be up to something with the Russians, you need to have the CIA, FBI, NSA, a substantial portion of Congress, 4 major news networks, a ton of registered Republicans working in law enforcement, and Mark Zuckerberg all be wrong. At the same time. And they all have to be in on it together, because how the fuck would they coordinate that independent of one another.   Or, the same guy who defrauded a bunch of people out of university diplomas, the same guy who did a ton of fucking racist apartment selling who HAS BEEN INDICTED AND FINED FOR DOING SO, who has filed for bankruptcy multiple times, who has cheated on all 3 of his wives, who has insulted decorated veterans for their disabilities, who has relentlessly made publicly inappropriate remarks no matter HOW MANY PEOPLE TELL HIM NOT TO, that guy, took some money from a person he already had tried to do business with when he was hard pressed for an out and wanted to win an election? Fuck it, look at the caliber of official he appoints. Scott Pruitt resigned this summer for ethics violations so heinous half the Republican leaders in Congress called for his indictment. It's not fucking hard to figure out man. I don't know where you're getting your information that you think it's a hoax, because honestly man, if somebody can fake all of that they're scary enough that they can fucking have my government.     And just to be clear, I never said I was pro gun control. I think gun control is a big red herring. It does absolutely nothing. It serves no purpose. It is literally paperwork for hobbyists. It is a fucking waste of our collective time as a nation. Just like the "threat" of terrorism, and the "threat" of MS-13 and the scary Mexicans, there is no real consequence of the lack of gun control. Every now and then someone throws a walleyed balleyed fit and shoots some people. Alright. Last I checked drunk drivers killed a few ten thousand more per year. Am I going to take everyone's keys away? Can we get a show of hands to see who has been affected by any of those three things? Nobody? Who has KNOWN someone who was affected by one of those things? Still nobody? Exactly.     So yes, I agree, gun control is a gigantic waste of fucking time spurred on by liberal hand-wringing over some mentally ill people. But food stamps, the nation's retirement, functioning healthcare, worker's rights, freedom of information for buyers in the housing market, sane trade policy, the negative impact of Citizens United, and the fucking Russians are all serious business. If someone were to pass legislation banning whatever the fuck 'assault weapon' (this term is meaningless, I agree) means, the gun market will make things to do the same function as 'assault weapons' in about a year. Or you could just mill it yourself. Hell, the milling machine is cheaper than your gun safe. But if all of those pillars of American democracy are eroded, we will essentially be living in the world's largest undeveloped shithole full of corruption.  [SEP] >They feed poor people. It is literally government money going to feed people so poor   It's not the government's job to feed people.   And no, it's not the government's money. It's money taken from other people. The government doesn't earn money. Ever. You've already kicked off your diatribe with a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government, and of property rights. Why shouldn't I act in a condescending manner toward you? I mean, I could be nice, but why bother? You've got so much bad programming in your head that being nice won't cut through that garbage. You're completely brainwashed into thinking that the government has a right to the money it takes, and that it can spend that money in any way it wants, because we're the property of that government.   Sorry, I don't like slavers. And yes, you're ceding your property to someone else. You're saying that it's OK to hold a gun to someone's head, threaten to put them in a cage, and take their money. The cause is good in general. Nobody wants people to starve. But the method you want to use to fix it is horrendous.   I don't necessarily blame you. You're a product of indoctrination, and aren't capable of rising above that yet. You seem pretty complacent, so I don't really feel the need to coddle you by being nice.   >Canadians. I think Canadians are pussies.  And you wonder why I'm not nice to you. This is a shitty, ignorant attitude, and doesn't make me like you any better. You've just earned every nasty thing I've said to you, and a few more to boot. Screw you. I'm done with you. Go fuck yourself. Canadians are great people, who deserve respect. Every time I've been to Canada, I've been treated like a friend by the people I've interacted with. They're respectful, nice, and are all in all wonderful people.   And if you think they're pussies, go check out their records in WWI, WWII, etc... 
Do you actually not understand what I'm saying, or are you just trying to be funny? If you literally don't understand, let me explain. "Black issues" is almost exclusively an American issue, because America is pretty much the only place in the world where blacks are a significant minority. In Europe, nobody ever talks about "black issues". In Africa, blacks are obviously not a minority. In Asia, blacks are almost non-existent. So yes, it's very US-centric to talk about "black issues" only, and not about "minority issues" or whatever.  Also, again, if you literally were not able to decipher what I mean, I asked how is veganism related to feminism, and I never implied that feminism is a US-centric topic. [SEP] >"Black issues" is almost exclusively an American issue, because America is pretty much the only place in the world where blacks are a significant minority.  "Significant"? What is the cutoff point for how many of them need to exist for their issues to be issues?  >In Europe, nobody ever talks about "black issues".   Europe is many countries, and I don't think you know what you're talking about here.  > So yes, it's very US-centric to talk about "black issues" only, and not about "minority issues" or whatever.  Unless you're open to talking about "minority issues", which from your original comment it seems like you're not, that's hardly relevant. Are you Russian?  >Also, again, if you literally were not able to decipher what I mean, I asked how is veganism related to feminism, and I never implied that feminism is a US-centric topic.  Your first sentence was ambiguous, just as easily understood to mean that both feminism and "black issues" are US topics as it is to mean that only "black issues" are a US topic. No need to get condescending about it. NBD.  Veganism is related to feminism in that the animal industry replicates gender-based patterns that exist in human society: specifically, reproductive exploitation of females and treatment of males as disposable.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. In a discussion about anything, lets just say feminism, what would the purpose of saying "You can't understand that" be, if not an attempt to discredit the opposing side, and stifle the discussion? It is most certainly an ad homiem attack, its an attack on your opponent's character and credibility, not one on the actual argument itself. There's literally nothing meaningful that would continue the dialogue if someone already decided that "you can't possibly understand something."  [SEP] >what would the purpose of saying "You can't understand that" be, if not an attempt to discredit the opposing side, and stifle the discussion?  I'll tell you.   I firmly believe that there are a multitude of things that one cannot truly understand without having lived it. For example, war. We can study causes, dates, casualties, tactics, technology, etc. But if you haven't fought in one, I don't think you can understand it.   I don't think you can truly understand depression, racism, poverty, and a whole host of other issues unless you've lived it.   So how is telling someone "you can't understand that" an ad hominem from that perspective? I've experienced severe depression. If I tell someone that hasn't experienced it, "you can't understand that" there is no malice, no judgement from my part. I simply believe that they cannot understand it. That's it. I appreciate their sentiment, and it's not my being condescending if I say that phrase. I simply cannot explain it, and I don't believe true understanding comes without experiencing it. In fact, I'm happier for them that they cannot understand it as they have not been severely depressed. There is no malice.  
"I feel very sorry for you and anyone else that believes in this lie.  Communism will never work, because it's the antithesis of Capitalism, and Capitalism is the default state of humanity.  See, there's one overarching problem that Communism cannot solve, and without solving this problem it cannot exist. Capitalism will always exist, unless you use force to forbid certain actions being consenting adults.  Say you distribute resources like food equally among a given population. Everyone has enough to get by. Josh has a slow metabolism and can comfortably get by with less food than he is given.  Today, Karen is feeling a bit more peckish than normal. Josh is horny. Josh goes up to Karen and says, 'I'll give you half my steak in exchange for a blowjob.' BOOM Capitalism.  ...Furthermore, if Communism could work, it would have by now. You realize there are hundreds of online video games, with tens of thousands of servers between them, with player run economies? Not one of those is Communist, despite games not having any inherent limitation that prevents Communism from working. When given a choice anyone and everyone defaults to Capitalism and self interest whether they realize it or not."   Was sent to me about a week ago lol I just replied with this [SEP] >"I feel very sorry for you and anyone else that believes in this lie.  That's not even an argument. It's just a condescending ad-hominem. 
Thank you for this comment. Something I've been trying to get through to people, on both sides, is to stop treating people as if they're not multidimensional characters. Typical guy who voted for Trump isn't just some stereotypically racist side-character; the majority of Trump supporters probably voted for him because he thought he'd be good for the economy because "he's a business man," or they took his promise at face value to bring jobs back, or some other innocuous reason. Likewise, the amount of people saying that any criticism of Trump is just "liberal tears" or some such nonsense is disgusting. What the fuck happened to respecting your fellow countrymen?  Sure, some Trump supporters are racist and unreachable, just like some liberals really do want to take away all your guns that you use for hunting. There are a roughly equal amount of unreasonable people on both sides. Stop acting like the only unreasonable people are on the other side.   Progress comes most easily from cooperation and understanding. From my perspective, the easiest way for me to lose respect for someone is if they're not willing to have a real, actual conversation with someone reasonable from the other side.  [SEP] > What the fuck happened to respecting your fellow countrymen?  There comes a point where a person realizes their fellow countrymen never treated them with respect or dignity, and then they get fucking pissed off and they stop playing the naive ideological nice way and start fighting the fuck back.  And you know what? I've never met a conservative who has respected me. Not one. The best I get is condescending tolerance. 
Actually you couldn't be more wrong lol. I've been the most woofed person on Scruff before, I keep a 10/10 response rating there as well as everywhere else I chat. When I get ignored, I just view it as someone else saving me the time of figuring out that they aren't the kind of person I care to associate with. I don't take the moral high ground in order to judge people, my way is simply better.   You can tell when someone knows that they have lost an argument, because they start attacking the character of their opponent instead of attacking the message that's being sent. They do this because they realize that their opponent is right, and that they can't argue with what they're saying, so they seek to devalue what was said by devaluing who said it.   All you've done here is show that you know you're wrong, and you know that I'm right. And now we both know it. Save your attempted character assassinations for people who are fooled by such desperate tactics.  [SEP] > You can tell when someone knows that they have lost an argument, because they start attacking the character of their opponent instead of attacking the message that's being sent. They do this because they realize that their opponent is right, and that they can't argue with what they're saying, so they seek to devalue what was said by devaluing who said it.  You are literally the most insufferable piece of garbage on the entire internet. You act like a total condescending piece of shit, and when someone regards you as such, you take it as evidence that they "know they lost" the argument?  Not only are you 100% wrong, you clearly have mental issues bordering on intellectual disability. Someone disagreed with your ignorant and conceded viewpoint and you just couldn't handle it.  
Many young mothers have a super flat tummy no stretch marks and perfect tits... That kid is about 2 or 3. Plenty of time to have worked off any sign of having ever had a child. You'll understand when you're older son...  [SEP] > You'll understand when you're older son...  46 year old female here. Condescend elsewhere. 
But it's one way to be ripped off. You have given them nothing, so they owe you nothing. Be cheerful for what you got, or try to express your disappointment in a way that doesn't make you sound like an entitled, selfish brat.  I didn't find this chapter very enjoyable either, but I didn't pay for it either, so I have little reason to complain. I can express my disappointment in other ways. [SEP] I never said I paid for it, and never implied that I deserved better for any monetary reasons. If you're reading that far into the five words I wrote then you might need to examine yourself more so than other people.   >> You have given them nothing, so they owe you nothing.   I have given to them. You know nothing about me or what I do, I have given money to the franchise and any decent artist knows they do owe their fans.   Go fuck yourself you condescending prick. 
Lol people think MOBAs are going to be as big as professional sports. I don't know why these kids are so short sighted and retarded. They think they're going to be cheering for a Jhin Curtain Call when they're in their 30s and 40s? It's almost obnoxious of them to try and argue that video games and real sports are the same thing. [SEP] > argue that video games and real sports are the same thing.  A. You really should drop the condescending attitude.  B. > The US Government recognises esports players as professional athletes  Source  Going to end with, you are pushing your own extremely jaded opinion forward as 'people think'...in other words you pushed a straw man argument. You are the short sighted you claim others to be. E sports is new and has gained a lot of traction, money and media attention.
Came here say this. That would be so fantastic for a time.   I frequently turn my UI off, start in one location (say Shaemor), and set a goal to travel somewhere else (say, the Forsaken Halls in Dredgehaunt Cliffs) without using the map. Doing this really gives you a much more solid perspective of the world as a whole, and gets you to pay attention to and appreciate all the little detail that is bursting to life in every corner of Tyria. (Although I continue to despise portals between zones, and loading screens.)  I can't help but feel most players would love to be able to appreciate and immerse themselves in the world the same way I do. It's just that they won't ever take the time to do something like this. Sometimes, as developers, you have to force (or, let's call it "guide") players to play a certain way in order to allow them to realize these benefits.   As much as I didn't really enjoy the overall world of FFXI when I played that from 2003-2005, and as I hated some of the mechanisms of transportation in that game, I really did love the fact that when you set out to travel to a far away area, it really was an adventure. (Although it's my understanding that travel has been made significantly easier in that game now.) I would be away from my home city for literally real-life months at a time. Then, when I'd finally come home, it truly felt like I was coming home. It wasn't just "that place I teleport to before I log off every night."  [SEP] > Sometimes, as developers, you have to force (or, let's call it "guide") players to play a certain way in order to allow them to realize these benefits.  No thank you. The developers already did this--it's called having to discover the waypoints before you can use them. Map completion also "forces" players to explore the world. Just because you enjoy walking around doesn't mean everyone else does. Wishing that everyone else has to do things exactly the way you enjoy is condescending at best.  The existence of waypoints still lets you play the game the way you want, so it is not harming you or your experience in any way, but removing waypoints forces other players to play in a way they may not want. That's not a benefit, that's just an aggravation.  Now that said I'm not wholly against the concept of waypoints going down (in a limited fashion) for a short time for the sake of the story. But it would definitely be an annoyance and do little except cut down on my playtime for the duration of the event.
give her the gift of a safety class. That way you both win. She gets to learn in another atmosphere and you get a s/o who learns the important basics about firearms.  I'll put it this way. My dad tried to teach me how to drive and failed miserably. He wanted me to learn but just kept getting frustrated at me. I learned in a class. I've also tried to teach various girlfriends things, things that I knew, and for whatever reason they just couldn't take 'their boyfriend' trying to teach them things. I guess they didn't want to appear dumb and I kept getting frustrated.  [SEP] Man, this is an excellent idea!  > and you get a s/o who learns the important basics about firearms.  [adding, if I may] without you being the one talking down to her about how it's done.  Let's face it, there simply is no way to teach someone how serious gun safety is without a certain amount of "talking down" to them by nature of the subject, even though you don't mean it in a bad way. Many (most?) of us just aren't good at doing that in a way that doesn't come off as rudely condescending to a significant other. Depending on the dynamics of the relationship, you might easily be damaging things both ways by being the one to introduce them to it. Sending (ahem, encouraging) them to a course on it is definitely win-win, I think.
A map doesn't need to be a 1:1 precise replica of whatever surface it is trying to represent to be useful. Models don't need to describe absolutely everything to be useful.   Language can and does describe reality. Scientists do it every day.   Writing with intelligent sounding words doesn't make an intelligent sounding text. Substance is what matters. Define your terms. Can you really clearly explain what 'ideology' even means? And virtue? Don't present arguments that have to be taken at face value without evidence (e.g. Capitalism justifies greed, inequality and oppression, where Communism justifies resentment, reprisal and totalitarianism.) Avoid needless truisms (e.g. To enact change we must define specifically that which requires changing and the appropriate action to change it.)  Think before writing. Develop your ideas. Prove your arguments. Bring out counterarguments and refute them. etc etc   [SEP] >Language can and does describe reality. Scientists do it every day.  I think what they're getting at is the concept that language describes reality, but is not equal to the reality is describes, and so reality conveyed by language is therefore less than reality as it really is. You can describe an elephant to me all day but I only know what one is when I see it for real.   While I believe in this concept, I don't think it's very compelling in the argument here, as ontological soundness is rather irrelevant to pragmatism.  That said I think you're being pretty condescending with your criticism of their style of writing. While they may not be very good at it, it's a valid style. 
Because instead of being a big boy and having a big boy conversation, you blame me for your behavior and then bitch about me to other commenters.  You can't, even for a second, understand why it might suck to try to make a valid point then be insulted because "boys clubs" are non-existent while the two of you hang out your "no gurlz aloud" sign. [SEP] >Because instead of being a big boy and having a big boy conversation, you blame me for your behavior and then bitch about me to other commenters.  Oh you're trying to counter-condescend, neat.  >You can't, even for a second, understand why it might suck to try to make a valid point then be insulted because "boys clubs" are non-existent while the two of you hang out your "no gurlz aloud" sign.  Yeah, see I don't know where you're getting this. You came in to a non-argumentative thread with an argumentative demeanour. And then you began holding me to arguments I hadn't made. You've been the one using gendered insults and making hetero-normative assumptions because I said I had a girlfriend. You've been accusing me of disagreeing with sentiments before you give me a chance to agree.   I'm not "Straight Man," I wasn't selected to be the representative heterosexual men, or really any other demographic, and a set of opinions doesn't come along with your membership card. Just like you aren't "Internet Feminist," and are not responsible for all of the contradictory opinions that are held by the plethora of people in the internet who identify as feminists. I don't want to be a part of round XXIV of the fucking internet gender wars.   What I would have loved was to hear how your points applied to my comment phrased in a genial manner, and then I could've responded in a genial manner. Then two strangers with a mild disagreement on the internet could've had a constructive conversation for once. Be more nice to people.
Do you not read your bible? I'm a Buddhist but even I know that in the bible Jesus overcame death. Death was the punishment. And the penalty of sin is death. Jesus overcame death. Clear and simple unless you want to remove that from the equation too.   What Universalists believe in is being redeemed. To lead a fruitful life in this life now. And love is the main factor there. What you don't notice is that it sounds more like love when god forgives everyone than oppose to only loving and forgiving those who do what he says.   Love doesn't exist where a god would send billions to eternal punishment. A father would not do that to their child.  [SEP] >Do you not read your bible?   No. Never. Save your condescending bullshit for someone else.  >Jesus overcame death. Clear and simple unless you want to remove that from the equation too.  Jesus also suffered. Clear and simple unless you want to remove that from the equation too.  >What you don't notice is that it sounds more like love  I notice the hippy-dippyness of Universalism.  >Love doesn't exist where a god would send billions to eternal punishment. A father would not do that to their child.  And that's why neither one of us is a Christian. 
International law specifically condemns occupation, as well as settlement building.  Allow me to make the your argument for you. Instead of pushing the indefensible angle as you are doing, the correct angle to pursue in defending Israeli policies is to point out that Israel is in overwhelmingly difficult situation under constant existential threat, which allows it to ignore specific part of international law because survival comes first and following international law to the letter would inevitably cause the demise of the state at worst, and massive increase in fatalities on both sides at best.  Essentially the argument for ethics of the issue, based on respective goals of the relevant parties in conflict. That argument is not easily winnable by either party, and is most certainly not as black and white as violations of international law by Israel as part of its occupation of West Bank.  Essentially you are correct in your last sentence, but the preamble you go through destroys your point by providing easy vector for attack on your argument using simple established facts. [SEP] >International law specifically condemns occupation, as well as settlement building  International law says nothing about the occupation. You are wrong.  >Allow me to make the your argument for you. Instead of pushing the indefensible angle as you are doing, the correct angle to pursue in defending Israeli policies is to point out that Israel is in overwhelmingly difficult situation under constant existential threat, which allows it to ignore specific part of international law because survival comes first and following international law to the letter would inevitably cause the demise of the state at worst, and massive increase in fatalities on both sides at best.  I'm not pushing anything incorrect or wrong. Your suggestion is a red herring. I'm engaging you in the facts. There is nothing that says the occupation is illegal. Settlements are claimed to be illegal, but they are not the cause of the conflict, and Israel has long been willing to halt them in exchange for peace. You said they couldn't be stopped.  You are wrong on your original points.  >Essentially the argument for ethics of the issue, based on respective goals of the relevant parties in conflict. That argument is not easily winnable by either party, and is most certainly not as black and white as violations of international law by Israel as part of its occupation of West Bank.  Building houses "violating international law" is not relevant to the overall question, and the occupation is clearly legal. The original statement you made was:  1) Israel is annexing settlements - False, Israel has not annexed settlements.  2) Israel won't stop building settlements - False, Israel has offered to do so numerous times for peace.  3) Israel won't stop its actions - Overall ignores all Palestinian actions which are the root of the issue.  >Essentially you are correct in your last sentence, but the preamble you go through destroys your point by providing easy vector for attack on your argument using simple established facts.  The fact that you're trying to tell me how to argue while not engaging in facts while making unfounded statements about international law is condescending, rude, and ignores the point particularly since you're changing the subjects.
>Nerf 20 foot fagguard swords  if your talking about zwei that weapon shouldn't be a problem to anyone who can fight well (it's just too slow)  >Slow down stab ripostes on all 1h weapons  Why? personally the sword of war and claymore are way worst for stab ripostes  >giving people a reason to use more of the 1h arsenal instead of just broad or holy faggot sprinkler  i use norse more than broad most of the time and the sprinkler takes a butt load of hits to kill anyone and no weapon is best weapon only best player, also flange mace and morning star are beast weapons too it's all on preference, the only sword you shouldn't use is falchion (i feel likes it still sucks)  >Reduce arrow damage across the board  Dos't though prague rouge? Learn 2 dodge m8  >Buff ls damage enough so that you don't need to get headshots to achieve the same htks you used to get  definitely no, headshots still matter and make a huge difference  >Nerf Brandi slash attack  yea but IDK why all i know is it's broken  >Keep the ability to 2 shot knights exclusive to knights  seriously!? that would imbalance the game to a huge amount and no one would not be a knight anymore  >Nerf fucking dodge  eh, if you spam it you can't dodge or attack much but as entire British army said, the backward dodge needs nerf  >Every other class' ability is situational  so is maa? knights also have more health all around so does that count as OP class skill? also maa can't dodge all day they get like 4 if they won't attack IIRC [SEP] > if your talking about zwei that weapon shouldn't be a problem to anyone who can fight well (it's just to slow)  GS more than anything. It's long enough that you don't need to pay attention to the distance between you and your enemy. That length coupled with the ridiculous instahits, drags and z stabs make it retardedly good in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Compared to the knight swords which are all shorter, and knights being slower of course, the vanguard swords are just way better.  > Why? personally the sword of war and claymore are way worst for stab ripostes  Yeah claymore is annoying, I forgot about that one. I'll put my issue with this into a question. Do you ever see anybody riposte with anything other than a stab? I sure don't, aside from the occasional gs user who ripostes with a lookdown overhead. I'd like some variety.  > i use norse more than broad most of the time and the sprinkler takes a butt load of hits to kill anyone and no weapon is best weapon only best player, also flange mace and morning star are beast weapons too it's all on preference, the only sword you shouldn't use its falchion (i feel likes it still sucks)  Norse and broad are similar enough I didn't bother mentioning it. HWS can 3 shot knights, and unless you go for the legs you will 4 shot them at max. Of course it takes a lot of hits to kill maa and archers since it deals blunt damage.  > Dos't though prague rouge? Learn 2 dodge m8  That works when you're hunting down a single archer, not when a skilled one is perched up and gets you in the middle of an engagement. Good archers really clean house on most maps. The only thing you can do to avoid an archer is dodge. Every melee class can be countered as you get better defensively. The problem with archers is that shooting a rank 50 is no different than shooting a rank 10.   > definitely no, headshots still matter and make a huge difference  In a team mode why would I choose longsword over greatsword or sow assuming I want to do well? Greatsword will easily 2 shot vans and 3 shot knights, no headshots required. Same for sow with stabs. Longsword needs either a headshot or an extra hit, while being slower than sow, and also less draggy, and shorter than greatsword.  > seriously!? that would imbalance the game to a huge amount and no one would not be a knight anymore  Why's that? It doesn't mean that knights will only be counter-able by other knights. Plenty of loadouts will still fuck knights up.   > so is maa? knights also have more health all around so does that count as OP class skill? also maa can't dodge all day they get like 4 if they won't attack IIRC  The only time a maa can't dodge is when he's out of stam. A vanguard has to run around for a few seconds, an archer has to sneak up on someone, and knights don't really have an ability since they should naturally have more health since they're slower.   I played with you the other day, you were rank 32 right? I don't mean to sound condescending, but I'm going to guess you haven't seen some of these weapons in the hands of someone who really knows how to use them.  
Jesus Christ, how can you possibly think telling 50% of your potential voters to shut up is a winning strategy. Look at her wrinkled leather mask: this bitch thinks this message is a slam dunk!  Hey McCaskill, you're doing the exact same thing Hillary did during her last campaign, putting half the population into a 'basket of deplorables' and expecting that to get out the vote in your favor. You cannot GAIN votes with a message like this, you can only LOSE votes you might've otherwise had.  I don't live in Missouri, so I couldn't vote for you even if I wanted to, but if you were in a state I lived in, you couldn't PAY me to vote for you if this is the tone and tenor you're going to take.  When the fuck are Dems going to get it through their thick skulls that identity politics is a dead end that's going to end up hurting them a lot more than hurting their opponents?  Honestly? Maybe YOU should STFU, because you don't really know what they hell you're saying. Get a better message, or hire a staffer who's more than a yes-man and will rubber stamp anything you want to put in a campaign ad. I mean, NOBODY told her "you know, maybe you might not want to make such a needlessly divisive message when you could just as easily go for a broadly appealing message"?  Edit: and yes, I realize this is a satire piece, but that you would be selected to give it shows that her saying something like this wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. There's already other female Congress members who've said similar things during the Kavanaugh nomination process, so it's well within the wheelhouse to treat this satire as legit. [SEP] >I realize this is a satire piece, but that you would be selected to give it shows that her saying something like this wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility.   Motherfucker, this is the left we're talking about., They don't actually understand satire. They think satire is just a way to say the things you really believe and still leave yourself an out to claim it's not true.  Satire is comedy. In order to use satire, you have to have a sense of humor. They don't.  Satire is just a weapon to them, just like all their bullshit escape clauses like mansplaining and whataboutism.
You are literally talking in circles trying to defend a 2 point comment all while over analyzing a random internet persons post....You have not bought the game. End of story. Your over all lack of experience allows me to cast out your opinions. If you have any experience or premise as to why we should trust your opinion beyond the "seems legit" nature of your post let me know. Other than that I feeeeel like you just do not want to unlock characters, and struggle with a 60 dollar game tag. I am guessing you are a younger gamer and most likely not very well off. I cannot really put myself in your shoes because I always buy games I support and enjoy seeing them grow. I also enjoy progression. This could be my warcraft background. Other than that your posts are low tier and I suggest you just let it go. You aren't saying anything of value and making this subreddit a doomsayer reddit. There is a specific location for improvements. I suggest you post there if you have anything original to say. As of now you are essentially the Kotaku of this Reddit. Thank you for your patronage.  [SEP] > You have not bought the game. End of story.  No shit sherlock, literally said that myself and my reasoning.  > Your over all lack of experience allows me to cast out your opinions.  "Lack of experience" on price tag and the fact characters are locked? Unless you can elaborate on them being incorrect then i don't need experience.   I'm specifically addressing why i didn't buy the game and why others may have also not. You do not need experience playing a game to talk about the sales of said game  >If you have any experience or premise as to why we should trust your opinion  What are you talking about. I'm one person from a pool of many who didn't buy the game. Why do you need to "Trust" my opinion. Opinions are OBVIOUSLY going to vary. YOU are the one who said my opinion about heroes come up so much, Which would mean it's clearly a popular opinion.   I'm not a fucking politician or a cars salesman, You don't need to "Trust" my opinion. It's just there, Get the fuck over it.  > I am guessing you are a younger gamer and most likely not very well off.  More fucking assumptions pulled out of your asshole. They offer absoloutley zero discussion. Even if i was (Which I'm not but i don't have to justify myself to some random jumped up asshole over the internet) It's not relevant at all to the situation.  >I cannot really put myself in your shoes  OBVIOUSLY YOU CANNOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOUGHT THE GAME. How could you put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't think the game is worth buying, When you have already bought it?  Jesus fucking christ, Did you really just come out with that crap?  >Other than that your posts are low tier and I suggest you just let it go.  Your posts are low tier. You have yet to post once without a condescending attitude. You offer little to no discussion and repeatedly tell me to stop posting when you engaged in the conversation in the first place. Y  You are free to stop commenting, Your providing nothing at this point behind parroting what i say and telling me about your background (Newflash, I don't give a damn about your background.) and making assumptions that you are older and more wealthy than me. Ignorance through and through.  >You aren't saying anything of value and making this subreddit a doomsayer reddit.   Likewise. You didn't bring anything to the discussion at all, You just made a pathetic half assed post trying to patronize me and didn't like it when i responded to your shit.  You haven't said a single reason as to why you think the game is not doing as well as it could. Not fucking one. Go on sit here and tell me the game is perfect in your deluded little world.  > There is a specific location for improvements.  I'll post where i damn want, This is a subreddit for mostly opinions. If you don't like it, I suggest you leave.  You are easily the biggest moron i have ever encountered on reddit and trust me I've encountered a lot of morons.  Go on, respond. Get the "Last word" like the moron that you are. I won't be responding to your shit anymore.
Police kill way more white people, and actually, if you look into it (which I'm sure no BLM supporters actually have) shoot unarmed white people at exactly the same rate.   Come talk to me when someone dies in an ambulance stuck on a highway these yahoos have shut down. Let's see how you feel then.  [SEP] > which I'm sure no BLM supporters actually have  That is incredibly condescending. 
Yes, because Russification, colonisation, prison labour or prison camps weren't a thing in Russian Empire, or again, Russian expensionism, Russification and stuff aren't things for Russia either. Again, I can see all the stuff you have suffered went away from Russia with communists losing the power, and they weren't a thing in Russian Empire either. /s I've heard in Kapital or What To Be Done, they argue about how to treat Estonians... [SEP] > Yes, because Russification, colonisation, prison labour or prison camps weren't a thing in Russian Empire, or again, Russian expensionism, Russification and stuff aren't things for Russia either   I feel like you're trying to be condescendingly sarcastic, but I don't know why.  Obviously Russia has done all that, but plenty of its crimes were committed first and foremost because it was a communist state.
>That's the thing. The GPS unit is a physical intrusion on your property. The Supreme Court has never granted broad protections to information, just to certain means to obtain that protection.  That's not true. Read up on Katz V United States. A wiretap was placed on a line that connected to a phone booth. No physical intrusion happened at the phone booth, and the phone booth was not owned by the person using it. But SCOTUS ruled that when the user closed the door, he had an expectation of privacy that his conversation would not be heard by anyone but the intended recipient.   I obviously have that same expectation of privacy when carrying a device that I own for my own purposes. All of the data coming from it, whether it's my conversation, my email, texts, or location data, all of it is personal information not to be shared unless I expressly allow such sharing by contract or EULA, or unless a warrant is issued.   >The police can't put a GPS unit on your car, but could have an unmarked vehicle follow you everywhere. They obtain the same information, but one method is constitutionally okay without a warrant, the other isn't.  That's because it's not illegal for anyone to follow you around as much as they want. The fact that this method is easily detectable makes the difference. You are not expecting privacy when you see someone following you, so you can decide if your actions are something you want to be seen. It's the same as if you have a conversation about something illegal right in front of a cop. That's not the same thing as them listening remotely without you having any way of knowing, or hiding a gps on your car.  >Your argument would be like saying that because the police can't place a bug in my house, the police also can't ask my girlfriend to tell them about the time I told her I killed a man in Reno just to watch him die.  No, that's not the same at all. You chose to share that information with someone. If they choose to share it with someone else, that's your fault, you trusted the wrong person. But if she is trustworthy, and the only reason they find out about it is that they first tracked you in Reno without a warrant and found you were there at the appropriate time, and then used that warrant less information to get a warrant to tap your cell and heard you talking to your girlfriend about it, that is a violation to your right to privacy. They shouldn't be able to track you with a cell phone if they can't do it with a GPS device. They have not changed the method as you previously stated, they just changed the device from one that they own to one that you own. The method is the same, I used to use them as a P.I. and they are just cell phones without voice. A gps connecting to a cellular network transmitting coordinates, and using tower triangulation when the GPS signal is too weak. Exactly the same as your cell.  >And the court here is, at least under current Supreme Court precedent, probably wrong. United States v. Miller covers this situation pretty clearly: a customer has no fourth amendment rights in records of business transactions which are in the possession of the business.  With a subpoena, which is has to be gotten from a judge the same as a warrant. Cops just can't walk in to a business and say "Give me all your records that have anything to do with John Doe". They need a search warrant if that business is the one they are investigating, and a subpoena for records at other businesses related to that crime. [SEP] > That's not true. Read up on Katz V United States. A wiretap was placed on a line that connected to a phone booth. No physical intrusion happened at the phone booth, and the phone booth was not owned by the person using it. But SCOTUS ruled that when the user closed the door, he had an expectation of privacy that his conversation would not be heard by anyone but the intended recipient.  That's true, but the analogy you drew was to Jones, arguing that if the police cannot place a GPS unit on a car without a warrant the same must apply to obtaining GPS information through another means. That is untrue.  And since we're going with snide "read up on this case", how about you read the more recent Miller case or Maryland v. Smith before being a condescending dick?  >I obviously have that same expectation of privacy when carrying a device that I own for my own purposes. All of the data coming from it, whether it's my conversation, my email, texts, or location data, all of it is personal information not to be shared unless I expressly allow such sharing by contract or EULA  Read your EULA, the cell phone company is clear that it keeps records of data sent, and GPS information. The third-party doctrine cases (post-Katz, mind you, so still good law) have been clear that information given willingly to a business is not protected by the fourth amendment against the government getting that information from the business.  Doubly true in this case, since the company is also what generates the information.  >The fact that this method is easily detectable makes the difference. You are not expecting privacy when you see someone following you  Not are you (reasonably) expecting privacy in information possessed by Verizon or AT&T. Which is what we're talking about.  If you're accepting (as you must) that the same information can be protected, or not, by the fourth amendment depending on how it is being obtained, you can't make a "GPS attached to the car = GPS information kept by your cell phone provider" argument.  So let's discuss the actual legal issue.  >If they choose to share it with someone else, that's your fault, you trusted the wrong person  Which also applies to information shared with a cell phone company. You either need to distinguish Miller or argue why the third-party doctrine would apply to bank records held by the bank but not cell phone records held by Verizon.  >They have not changed the method as you previously stated, they just changed the device from one that they own to one that you own.  And changed the chain of custody from "we intruded on to the person's property to place this device which transmits information to us" to "the person gave the information willingly to a third-party from which we received the information."  Which is also the difference between a listening device and my girlfriend wearing a wire when she comes to see me (see United States v. Hoffa). That's actually literally the same means, the only difference is that the recording is being done by someone who is not herself a police officer. And since Hoffa, Miller, and Smith, are all post-Katz you still need to deal with them.  It is the same technology, the difference is that the cell-phone data is given (by the consumer) to Verizon which then gives it to the government, as opposed to the government taking the data directly.  The intermediary step is the difference. Hence Hoffa.  >With a subpoena, which is has to be gotten from a judge the same as a warrant  No, it doesn't. A subpoena is not subject to warrant requirements, much less required to be supported by probable cause. You claim to have been a PI, but I'd really hope a PI would be aware that subpoenas aren't required to meet any evidentiary requirements.  >Cops just can't walk in to a business and say "Give me all your records that have anything to do with John Doe"  Well, they can, they just can't enforce it. If the company voluntarily complies, there's no fourth amendment protection for Doe to invoke.  And if they obtain a subpoena, Doe has no fourth amendment protection.  But let's say the police don't, and just take the data. The only entity whose rights have been violated is the company, Doe still has no fourth amendment protection.  There is no situation where the records of Doe's cell phone GPS (held by the business) would require a warrant to obtain from the business.  Unless you're claiming the third-party doctrine doesn't apply to cell phone service.
I have, and there's one in particular that isn't judge-y but the other couple I've told just don't seem to believe me. It doesn't bother me that much really, not enough to stop getting it anyway. I know what my doctor said, the pharmacist doesn't have to believe me. It's OTC and I'm not breaking any laws so the judgmental looks don't really matter at the end of the day. [SEP] There's nothing wrong with being bothered by it - I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay your concerns when you've made a point to post to a subreddit which is largely populated with pharmacists, pharm techs, and pharmacy students. Don't be afraid to voice your concerns about your health care.   > I know what my doctor said, the pharmacist doesn't have to believe me.   It's important to have a good relationship with your pharmacists! Your doctor is not the end-all be-all in your healthcare. As a matter of fact, it looks like you've got at least two in this thread so far doing MTM for you.   But if your pharmacists don't believe you after you've fully explained your situation to them, then you're right, there's nothing more you can do about them.    Also, if this sounds rude or condescending I don't mean it to. Just giving you an opinion from my perspective as a student who has been judged by other healthcare providers as a probable drug seeker in the past.
Oh.. my.. I'm so confused.   I was really rather certain the conversation was about the lasting, and perpetuated, benefits to white (or perceived as) people in this country and the intense bias to black (or perceived as) people because of that particular part of American history. Mercy me. I'm so happy you explained it. Now I don't have to be offended at the trope you just played out, oh savior.  Edit: I honestly hate all of you fucking people. Refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem even if there's solid science on it. Cosigning bullshit. I legitimately see nothing to like about having to share a planet with you. I understand why people propose genocide.  [SEP] I'm sorry, but whatever you are trying to say was lost in your multiple layers of sarcasm, and your utterly inscrutable phrasing. And then you launch into what I can only imagine to be an unprovoked hate-speech that encourages genocide against some group [which one specifically isn't clear]. And then it ends. A comment that I can only describe as 'angry' draws to close.  Some troubles I'm having:  >benefits to white (or perceived as) people  Perceived as what? There are three possibilities which convey hugely different meanings. Perceived as white is the most obvious one, but is totally meaningless, perceived as people is the second most obvious and is incredibly racist and insane, and then perceived as benefits which is a struggle to even connect to the parenthetical, and which has little meaning at best.  And then your inconsistent narrative. First you are confused, then you establish that you already knew what the conversation was about, and then you say that you have been convinced wholly to switch. Some of this is sarcastic, obviously the end bit is dickishly so, I think the begining is also condescending but it might represent a false self deprecation. In any case, I can see no consistency in what you're trying to say.  You seem to be implying that you might get offended by a trope, which is a bit of a struggle for me to understand. You seem to possess a misunderstanding of either 'offense' or 'trope'.  And then you reference a solid science without alluding to which science that might be. I legitimately can't tell if you're a racist, a racism denier, an antisemite, or anything else. It seems that others understood you, so maybe I'm simply being stupid or missing something, but I'm totally lost here.
This is why I like Sanders. He listens. Just like he listened to the BLM protesters, he is listening to criticism of some of his supporters.  It's funny how Berniebros have so little faith in their candidate though to assume he's being bullied and that he doesn't actually care about women or minorities. [SEP] > It's funny how Berniebros have so little faith in their candidate though to assume he's being bullied and that he doesn't actually care about women or minorities.  These are the same people that treat the "black vote" like a commodity, rather than a group of people (many of whom have shared concerns, of course, but still individuals). They care more about condescendingly "reaching out" to black voters as if they need a missionary to enlighten them. I think Bernie's better because the concerns voiced by a lot of black Americans are matters that he needs to support as a matter of truly representing the values of equality and fairness that he espouses. They can't imagine that Bernie actually supports minority groups (I hate using such big umbrella terms; if there's a better way to phrase this, please let me know) because doing so is a natural outgrowth of his views, they think he's just trying to trick people to vote for him because they can't imagine actually caring about issues that black people face, or LGBTQ people.  Okay, end rant that shamelessly jumps from your comment.
So, I personally am not outraged. I can't speak for anyone else in the thread with RadiumJuly. You do understand that one can disagree with another, even strongly, and not be outraged, right?  Since your entire point is predicated on reading a person's intent carefully, do you not think it makes your position a little less trustworthy to ascribe outrage to those with whom you disagree?  Anyhow...  When I made my post, Eulenspiegel74's comment   >"Gatekeeping in its finest form"   was still toward the top, and therefore the connection was more obvious. It's now low enough down and nested deeply enough that I had to actually go and unnest comments to find it. That's life on reddit, I guess. Unlike you, RadiumJuly did not fight that assertion. His response was   >"I guess you could view it like that, you are welcome to it."  Gatekeeping, as I understand it, and as I use it here, is   >When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.  To me, it seemed as though RadiumJuly was implying that those who do not play in a way he likes—with little regard for optimization—are, by definition, not a seasoned or veteran or, to use the OP's language, experienced player.   I specifically contrasted my view with his, because my idea of an experienced/seasoned/veteran player does not need to play in a specific way or value a specific style, other than the enjoyment of those at the table. I put the bar at trying to make the game more fun—inherently subjective, I admit—for the people with whom you are playing. He places the bar with playing in a specific way, and does not mention anything about the subjective enjoyment of those you are with. He could very well have assumed the idea that one should also make the game "better" for those around you, but it wasn't anywhere in his list of requirements.   Now, you could argue that my definition is also a form of gatekeeping, and I suppose you'd be right. If a player actively tries to make the game less enjoyable for others, I would not let them past the gate of experienced/seasoned/veteran. But I draw a fairly firm line between the pursuit of the enjoyment for your group (no matter how they play) and a specific "right" way to play.  Finally, I concede that I may have read into RadiumJuly's comment more than he intended. If I did, mea culpa. I am clearly not the only one who misunderstood his intent if it was not as I interpreted it, but that is, again, one of the downsides to conversations on the internet. Have an upvote for insisting that I reassess.  [SEP] > You do understand that one can disagree with another, even strongly, and not be outraged, right?  This is unbelievably condescending. Given that its part of your opening statement I can only assume that the rest of your comment is in kind. I'm not reading it, I'm done with the thread.
And? Tuomas Sandholm heads the group. You don't think I researched this matter and looked for the white paper for 'Libratus' before commenting?     Also, I hope you understand that there are number of people who posses graduate degrees from top Universities who have published papers... This becomes less impressive and 'neat' to such people.  But, lets run through the publications for shits and giggles..    Noam Brown, Christian Kroer, and Tuomas Sandholm. Dynamic Thresholding and Pruning for Regret Minimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2017.   Essentially :  http  Been around for some time. Papers dating back to the 70's,80's ...  http  An essential component to most game bots .. Create problem space (decision tree).. search problem space, prune ..   Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Reduced Space and Faster Convergence in Imperfect-Information Games via Regret-Based Pruning. arXiv, 2016.   Fuzzy logic for back pruning a decision tree using statistics .. Been done before   Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Strategy-Based Warm Starting for Regret Minimization in Games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2016. Extended Version.   Dynamic Seeding/conditioning of decision tree based on more recent data.   Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Regret-Based Pruning in Extensive-Form Games. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015. Extended Version.   Back pruning utilized by a neural net  Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Simultaneous Abstraction and Equilibrium Finding in Games. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2015. Extended Version.   Data fitting and encoding  Noam Brown, Sam Ganzfried, and Tuomas Sandholm. Hierarchical Abstraction, Distributed Equilibrium Computation, and Post-Processing, with Application to a Champion No-Limit Texas Hold'em Agent. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2015.   Using proven methods to build a statistical optimization and search engine for heads-up small search space no limit holdem poker.  Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Regret Transfer and Parameter Optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2014. Extended Version.    Decision trees, convergence, search space, pruning, back pruning and parameter optimization .. been around since the 80s. You learn this stuff in your 2nd year in college in a data structures and algorithms course writing a game bot. The difference here is the distributed computing and scaling of it.  “We don’t write the strategy. We write the algorithm that computes the strategy.” — Tuomas Sandholm    Proves my point that this is nothing more than statistical optimization and search and even then the techniques used for achieving this mathematical approach are nothing new or earth shattering. All-in-all this is nothing ground breaking w.r.t to A.I as this is your standard game-bot approach. [SEP] > Also, I hope you understand that there are number of people who posses graduate degrees from top Universities who have published papers... This becomes less impressive and 'neat' to such people.  Wow, you are condescending. I do research in the area as well.   It's easier to tear things down than find value in incremental improvements.   Edit: Did you make an account just to tear down this article/his research? 
> So you figured it out & then left - disassociated - within 3 days?  I was a believer, but I was never baptized, so I never had to disassociate. But yeah, I figured it out in the late afternoon, stayed up all night to think about it, spent a day staring at a wall trying to process it, another short night wondering what to do next and then I finally fell asleep because I was too tired.  Then I decided to drop everything I believed right there and then, because even though it sucks, if what I believed was wrong, I could kick and scream, but it would not make it more true. I just never went back to the kingdom hall.  I talked to an elder about it later, but he saw that he wasn't going to pull me back in and that I was happier outside, so he just let it go.  And again, it's a non-sequitur - a logical fallacy. Just because someone is on here, doesn't mean they're not over it. I could just stop visiting this place, but I enjoy the crowd too much. Others like to be here for activism. Others have loved ones who are still in. People come here for many different reasons, not necessarily because they're not over their exit or its ramifications. [SEP] > Just because someone is on here, doesn't mean they're not over it. I could just stop visiting this place, but I enjoy the crowd too much. Others like to be here for activism. Others have loved ones who are still in. People come here for many different reasons, not necessarily because they're not over their exit or its ramifications.  Frankly, you weren't the sort of person I was referring to. I was commenting upon one particular person who, although making wonderful, insightful posts most of the time, occasionally goes off on a tear or tangent declaring that (almost) everyone should just "get over it", bite the bullet & leave - no matter what the personal costs might be.  I've gotten the feeling that he's aiming the main impetus of his forceful declarations to get over the "bump" & leave, at himself - because he clearly wishes someone had come along a LOT earlier & kicked HIM in the hiney to get him out of the cult. Also, referring to the situations of many who can't leave as a "bump" is a condescending way to describe the trauma of being trapped in a highly manipulative cult.  If someone COULD go back in time & give him the proverbial kick in the ass (as he apparently advocates, at times), if he wasn't in a somewhat receptive mental state for such tactics, they might have driven him further into the cult. He's approaching the problem of getting people to disassociate from a VERY narrow viewpoint - & going along with what u/PoobahJehooba said, that poster seems to lack compassion & empathy when he gets into his "Disassociate NOW or you're supporting child molesters!" mindset.
> the President pretty much has to nominate a "compromise" choice  As I've said a few times here, this place has more Republican talking points than CPAC. You're accepting the total breach of democratic norms by the GOP and normalizing it by saying things like that. The "compromise" between a milquetoast liberal and a proto-fascist is not something any progressive should accept.  > And when I express it as a legitimate concern of mine, I get accused of fear mongering. Fuck that. I will not fucking apologize for having a strong opinion on this issue.  This is almost humorous. "I will never apologize for repeating verbatim the most boring, centrist, establishment wisdom! Look how rebellious I am!" [SEP] > The "compromise" between a milquetoast liberal and a proto-fascist is not something any progressive should accept   The world doesn't work that way. I realize that it shouldn't work that way, but that is, in fact how it works. I would love nothing better than the people in D.C. representing our interests than in partisan interests. But we both know that's not going to happen any time soon.  > This is almost humorous. "I will never apologize for repeating verbatim the most boring, centrist, establishment wisdom! Look how rebellious I am!"  You can be as dismissive, arrogant and condescending as you like. The fact remains that my key concern in this election is what's going to happen to SCOTUS.   Go be a dick to someone else. You're good at it. 
This advice is somewhat warranted though. My fiancé has depression, sometimes pretty bad (luckily a lot better lately). I've been depressed but never considered myself to have "depression" (in other words, I was in a shitty place in life, and didnt realize I needed to change it).  When I start to get down, I realize I need to make a conscious effort to be happy. Don't get mad at things that don't matter, treat others nicely, that kind of crap.  This is the small boost I need, and I feel people who give that advice think that's all you need. They don't realize there is a different level of depression, where your life is fine but you feel shitty. And that's why that advice pisses people off in my opinion. [SEP] >They don't realize there is a different level of depression, where your life is fine but you feel shitty. And that's why that advice pisses people off in my opinion.  I completely agree with this. A lot of people don't understand that clinical depression isn't something that can be easily fixed.   To me, when people say "just be happy", it sounds like they're saying that I should just flip a switch and poof, my problems will be gone. It isn't something that can be fixed so simply, and when people imply that it is, it invalidates the hard work I put in to getting my life on track. There's no magical cure for depression unfortunately.   In addition, my previous post doesn't carry tone of voice which is very important. Whenever I get told "just be happy", it's usually in such a condescending way that it drives me up the wall. It's like I'm being told that I'm stupid for not doing so. It links back to the bit where I feel like my hard work is being invalidated.   Still, striving to be happy is important. A positive outlook is helpful, but it isn't the only thing. Medication prescribed by my psychiatrist and therapy is a hell of a lot more useful, but it requires all three in the end.
That's not useless at all. I don't mind them knowing that I message my friends. I do mind them reading it with no warrant.  [SEP] > I don't mind them knowing that I message my friends.   Not trying to be condescending, but do you then also not mind that the government collects meta data which shows where you were (in the case of cellphones at least) and who you are communicating with?   Especially since you don't technically own that data according to the courts interpretation. 
Few thoughts:   Picture 1: Conduct doesn't mean what you think it means.  Picture 2: Actually I have nothing bad to say about this.   Picture 3: Guys can and have said things like this. Shit, I think shoulders are sexy.  Picture 4: Normal t-shirts aren't the same as tight/revealing clothes. And aren't those men's running shorts? Do you not think a guy would get in trouble if he was wearing them?  Picture 5: One of those pics is of a male.   Edit:   >Mabes. 14. Pansexual.Loves [...] dorks who drink at Mclaren's Pub.  ~~What kind of 14 year old has a favorite pub? o.O~~ Nvm I don't watch enough TV apparently.  [SEP] > Normal t-shirts aren't the same as tight/revealing clothes.  Yeah, but shirts that say, "cool story babe, now make me a sandwich" and "TWSS" do get worn around school & no authority figure calls them out to change. I think they're rude & condescending. :/
If your friend stopped wearing shirts, would you still hang out with them? Why or why not?  It's ok to downvote and not answer. The journey to knowledge is a winding path. It takes time. [SEP] > The journey to knowledge is a winding path. It takes time.  This has to be one of the most condescending things I've ever seen someone say in my life
I think you misunderstand the dynamic of those PMs.  Trolls mean to troll, and they'll push people's buttons. Their being assholes in that regard doesn't make them necessarily anti-feminist; but they're still assholes and that aspect I do not condone. [SEP] >I think you misunderstand the dynamic of those PMs.  That was rude.  You don't even know what PMs or comments she's talking about. I personally have had abusive comments and PMs from people who are very clearly anti-feminists and are not (at least usually) trolls.  It is so arrogant of you to come into a thread about people's experiences with sexism and start telling us that we're wrong.  >Trolls mean to troll, and they'll push people's buttons.  What, you think we don't know what trolls are?  Could you possibly be any more condescending and completely out of the loop of the discussion?
> Here are the google results from an idol anime I watched once, look at the girl. The skimpiest thing she has on is a tank top, definitely not just a bra (even her bikini outfit covers up more than Tsubasa's shirt). You don't need to dress skimpily to be an idol, that's a ridiculous idea.  Here is the cover for the very first issue of this manga. This is supposed to be a 14 year old girl by the way, so not only is she being sexualized, it's also pedophilia! Sterling example.  >Depends on the context. At a beach? Obviously no problem there. Chilling at home? People can wear what they want. In public where people are dressed normally? Hell no! Even so, the fact that you're insulting people who are bothered by it is unecessarily rude. You could have given your opinion without calling those who disagree "prudes".  I'm not insulting you because you disagree. I don't mean any insult at all, actually. I'm calling you a prude because your arguments and opinions are literally that of a prude. You're pushing yourself further into that territory with each post you make. I'm stating a fact. If you think being a prude is a bad thing, then change your behavior. Don't try to deny it.  Clothes don't even enter into it; Women should have the right to be topless in public, so your attempt to police what type of fucking clothing we should be allowed to wear is downright offensive. [SEP] >Here is the cover for the very first issue of this manga.   She is wearing a tank top, far different from the outfit Tsubasa is wearing. That outfit on the manga is nowhere near as sexualised as Tsubasa's bra. You can show skin without inherently being sexualised.   You claim you're not being insulting then you talk condescending towards me and then act like I'm attacking you because I dislike seeing girls in bras. This has nothing to do with real people, Tsubasa is not a real girl who can choose what she wears, she is a fictional character who was made to be sexualised, that's why I dislike her outfit and what she stands for. I want to see more female characters that are made more than just "waifu bait". Just because I want Tsubasa's outfit to be changed and personally think people should not dress that way in public, it does not mean I'll go up to a random girl and tell her to put clothes on.   >Women should have the right to be topless in public, so your attempt to police what type of fucking clothing we should be allowed to wear is downright offensive.  That's not how the world works. People should be dressed in public (of course there are places where it's more acceptable to be dressed to certain levels), men and women. Men can't wear whatever they want, and neither can women. People should not have to be made uncomfortable in public.   Anywho that has NOTHING to do with a fictional anime girl who has no free will of her own so I have no idea why you even brought it up.
white privilege is not discussed as a pejorative. it is used to help white people see that racism exists and that just because they can't see it, doesn't mean its not there. the privilege aspect is used to show that racism isn't segregation of schools or straight up slavery but instead it is a subtle bias towards white people, e.g. being given the benefit of the doubt by a police officer. No-one's saying white people should be treated worse, its about looking past how you're treated to see how others may have differing experiences [SEP] > white privilege is not discussed as a pejorative. it is used to help white people see that racism exists and that just because they can't see it, doesn't mean its not there.  How is that not some next-level condescending bullshit right there? I'm white, and I can completely understand the struggles that black people have to deal with.   > but instead it is a subtle bias towards white people  See - it's that stupid bullshit that "white privilege" starts. This isn't a bias TOWARDS white people, it's a bias AGAINST people of color.  Imagine a cop walking up to a car full of black youths that he's pulled over for a broken tail light. Do you think he looks over and clutches his gun because of a bias towards white people? Or do you think he's judging this situation because of a prejudice against black people? 
I don't know what the solution is to this. I like to imagine a Utopian world where everyone is cared for and we are truly a united species. But I don't see how that transition can take place. I don't see how the world can be expected to take in so many refugees. I can't judge the countries facing an impossible problem. I don't think there's a perfect answer to this.  I really enjoyed the video, though. [SEP] > But I don't see how that transition can take place.  By starting at your own doorstep. Those European countries taking in large numbers of refugees right now (which is Austria, Germany and Sweden) have seen an incredible amount of people stepping in where the government fails. Organizing food, buses, shelter, education. It's amazing to see how many "ordinary" people are teaching language classes or are raising their voices against racist politics. Sure, it's open if this will last on, but it's worth a try and certainly the better option than to build a huge wall around Europe.  > I don't see how the world can be expected to take in so many refugees.  That's an interesting way to see this. I recommend (and I say that not in a condescending, but an encouraging manner) to look at how this very same debate we are currently having looked like around 1930/1940 in the US regarding Jewish immigrants from Europe. From today's point of view, these newspaper commentaries and politician's statements are nothing but disgusting, yet they're very much identical to what we hear today. Let's try to not repeat the same mistake over and over again. (To be clear, I don't state that what is happening in Syria is identical to the Holocaust.)
Feminism and enjoying when someone pays on a date aren't really a contradiction. Feminism, like any activist group are about fighting societal oppression or inequality. I'm Black, I fight against racism, however, if I'm in an intimate relationship with a white woman who likes to yell something like "Give me that ngger dick" during sex, then I'd be fine with that. Just because I want me and my community to be treated a certain way by the government and society at large has little bearing on how I'd like to be treated in an intimate, private and personal relationship. And that preference doesn't undermine my activism because it's a private matter between two people that doesn't have any effect on my community's treatment, either negative or positive. Sure, you can not pay for a date, and she'll respect that...but there might not be a second date. I know quite a few Black activists who don't mind their white and latinx friends saying the N-word around them, because that is the level of intimacy they share with those friends. If you don't have that level of intimacy and trust with those Black people, then you'd get knocked out for saying that very same thing.   Do you know how toxic Disney is? Especially older Disney movies, and they were mostly written and directed by dudes. Also, being nice is the bare minimum of human interaction and doesn't even guarantee platonic friendship, let alone a romantic relationship, the fact that so many dudes never got that is extremely baffling. I mean, do these dudes think that old ladies bust that pussy open for dudes who help them across the street or....what? That's like thinking Basic Combat Training is enough to get into a military career when, really, you'll also need to complete Advanced Infantry Training and then Military Occupation Specialty training, AT LEAST, before you get assigned to a military career and corresponding unit. Improvements beyond that bare minimum only help your chances to varying degrees, but doesn't guarantee you'll attract a particular woman or man you really want.   Do you know what girls, not women, girls have to deal with growing up? Grown ass men staring you up and down, talking about how "fine" you're gonna be when you grow up... or how fine you already are. My sisters started growing breasts when they were eight or nine years old, and I had to cuss out a bunch of nasty old dudes for trying to hit on them or catcall them. And that's just girlhood. I totally understand women being rude to men they don't want to deal with, and a lot of dudes can't take a hint unless she damn near bites their head off.  I don't know about any of you, but I grew up in the Black community, where neither men, nor women are coy or polite about what we want in a partner. I can listen to any female rapper or singer and know EXACTLY what type of men they want. Solé likes "pretty niggas with big dicks who do tongue tricks." Solé left no room for interpretation, and dudes with NONE of those qualities knew to step back and let her marry Ginuwine who did have those qualities. I mean, seriously, this confusion dudes have is so weird to me given my upbringing. Even as a teenager I knew that "nice guy" stuff wasn't nearly enough to attract a girl and that's perfectly fine.  [SEP] I like your comment because I felt like it came from a real place but there's a few things you misunderstood:  >Just because I want me and my community to be treated a certain way by the government and society at large has little bearing on how I'd like to be treated in an intimate, private and personal relationship.   Women can have their side of the date paid for if that's what they like and that's what they're honest about. The point is feminists are complaining about lack of equality but there's still all of insidious social pressures men have to deal with. Paying for the date is just skimming the surface. While women have to deal with page gap, chauvinism (mansplaining/manterrupting), increased likelihood of experiencing sexual assault and that kind of stuff, men have their own baggage too. For example working dangerous jobs, more likely to experience sexual/romantic isolation, increased likelihood of experiencing violent assault. If it's true that you can't compare apples and oranges, you also can't compare male gender issues with female ones.  ​  > being nice is the bare minimum of human interaction and doesn't even guarantee platonic friendship, let alone a romantic relationship, the fact that so many dudes never got that is extremely baffling.   1. I was talking about lies and false impressions that it's enough to be nice to get ahead in dating. I never said that it should be enough to get ahead in dating. 2. I also talked about guys who do have other attractive and desirable qualities, not just nice guys, who fall behind in dating.  ​  > I totally understand women being rude to men they don't want to deal with, and a lot of dudes can't take a hint unless she damn near bites their head off.   Yeah, and some men have shit to deal with also. Let's not marginalise other people's issues here just because you've got it bad. Personally I've never been assaulted (violently or sexually) so I can't say I have things bad in that regard but I have been socially, romantically and sexually isolated all of/most of my life and that shit takes its toll even if it can't be compared to other stuff.   Anyway, I know you're not trying to play that game (the fallacy of relative privation), you're point is that women react in a certain way because of the underlying social context. However what I'm going to point out is that women are rude to guys that aren't fucking weird to them. And I'm sorry but they don't deserve that just because women have to take a few precautions. Besides the safe thing to do is never antagonise a guy by being bitchy because if he's a fucking weirdo he's ten times more likely to go psycho on you for being bitchy. Unless things escalate, it's always better to start off with a simple, polite rejection.  ​  >I don't know about any of you, but I grew up in the Black community, where neither men, nor women are coy or polite about what we want in a partner.   Yeah, white people like me could definitely do with some more of this.
You're preaching to the choir, a.k.a. someone that lives below the poverty line. Some people make decisions early in life that they have to continue to live with well into their 30s and 40s. Some begin in stable relationships, decide to have kids, then they go through a divorce, or maybe even a partner walks out, leaving the child and single parent to fend for themselves. Some are college grads that can't get a job on account of the piss poor state of the still recovering economy and have to attempt to pay off student loans for fear of credit collapse and/or arrest. Every situation is different. Not everyone is immediately capable of advancing themselves. Many are just trying to make it by. It's a shame that honest people are often blamed for their situations.  Yes, a cheap beater for a car helps in the short run, until it breaks down a few months later and you have to buy another one. Food stamps help, but it hardly make a dent. Especially for those with kids, or, rather, endless pits. Also, with gas prices going up, that is becoming more and more of a problem, as well.  And I understand how the market works. I'm actually rather educated. Take your passive insults elsewhere. [SEP] >And I understand how the market works. I'm actually rather educated. Take your passive insults elsewhere.  I just re-read my original post and you're right, my sentence about "learning market" did sound condescending. It was not intended that way. When I said "...but if you take the time to learn how the market works and teach your kids, THEY might be able to make that jump " I did not mean you personally.   A better choice of words would have been "...but if a person takes the time to learn how the market works and teaches their kids, THEY might be able to make that jump. "
I meant Scar, not so much Mustang. However, the Mustang scene was also handled poorly on the basis that Envy deserved every bit of what he got.  >Also, I am very curious to see why you consider HxH to be less cliche than the average good shonen.  That's such a stupid question that rather than answer it myself, I'm going to link you to a short video that just details a few reasons why it is decidedly less cliche than the average shounen:  http   I don't particularly agree with the assertion that HxH as a whole is a "deconstruction," but it does have many deconstructive aspects. [SEP] >the Mustang scene was also handled poorly on the basis that Envy deserved every bit of what he got.  I don't know about that, the scene always made sense to me. Envy was a shitbag for what he did but I understood the intentions clear as day. It didn't feel offbeat to me at all, at least that's how I remember it.  >That's such a stupid question that rather than answer it myself, I'm going to link you to a short video that just details a few reasons why it is decidedly less cliche than the average shounen:  http   Alright, I can understand why you'd consider HxH less cliche than the average shonen. However, condescending answers like yours are really off putting to anyone looking at HxH. I've always seen HxH fans getting falseflagged by trolls and gave the fanbase the benefit of the doubt. After watching the show, loving it, and subscribing to this subreddit, I'm pretty disappointed to see why they're always at the center of shitflinging when it comes to shonen discussions. It just reeks of elitism in here, and it's not just you.
Nobody is arguing that people are anti-semitic because they belong to a specific group. You got this all backwards. The anti-semites are the ones arguing the Jews are evil because they belong to a specific group. There are jew haters of all races, sexes, economic backgrounds from around the world.  My main criticism on "intersectional theory" is that it does not take into account these other, more adequate explanations for the data. It's focused on a few dimensions that are decided by the researcher's prejudice. The world is more complicated that simply categorizing people into groups exposes stark differences. All these traits that you can categorize people by have interdependencies.   At the jewish example that one would be a dependency between being jewish and working in finance. This is a correlation but is it a causality? This is what science is about. The cause for jews to work in finance was not their inherent genetic makeup as the Nazis believed, it was the culture around them forbidding them from working for anything else and forbidding Christians from loaning money with interest.  Intersectionality is the search for the confirmation of preexisting stereotypes. Once it's established that there are no black women in that company nobody cares why. [SEP] > Intersectionality is the search for the confirmation of preexisting stereotypes.  Intersectionality is the idea that prejudices are not additive, they are multiplicative. We know there are prejudices against blacks and also prejudices against women, in the same way that we know there are prejudices against Jews, because the people who have them say so. Intersectionality suggests that (for example) black women might face the consequences of those prejudices differently that black men or white women.  Another thing that you keep doing is to take the words that I use and tell me "what they really mean." That's condescending and elevates your (own estimation of your) ability to comprehend reality above my own. It's unhelpful in trying to bridge gaps.  Remember, I'm not a proponent of intersectionality. I'm trying to steelman it so that I can understand what truths it can offer despite a framework that tends toward being abused. You can't even engage in the intellectual exercise "What if intersectionality had some truths to offer?" with me; instead, you constantly gaslight, switch topics, and engage in disproving things I haven't said. How will you ever be able to communicate with someone who is deeply invested in the framework?  You won't.
Well that's your right.....but I'm gonna guess this is your first election you really paid attention to? I wish the elections could be won ethically, but after watching the last 5 elections go down, I don't know if thats possible.   And between the two major candidates, getting a heads up on a town hall question is a lot less unethical than telling all your supporters the democratic process is rigged without a shred of proof, believing you can sexually assault women because you are famous, saying we need to murder the families of terrorists, saying we need to just steal Iraqs oil, and so many other despicable things its hard to keep track.  Hillary wasn't my first choice, but shes BY FAR the best choice available. [SEP] > Well that's your right.....but I'm gonna guess this is your first election you really paid attention to?  What a fucking condescending thing to say. God forbid anyone have any actual fucking morals. I find it appalling and no, this isn't the first election I've been paying attention to. It is however, the first one that's made me ashamed to be a democrat.
Fuck it, ill call out both u/panopss and u/Karthikacmilan as well:  A troll? Really? Thats what you think? Then both of you are fucking idiots. At least the moderator was nice enough to put up a proper reply..  Imagine loving a gamemode which the actual Dev's hate. Imagine being the only person in your friendship group who loves said gamemode. You finally find a community, a little slice of the world who also loves said gamemode. Low and behold, they have a forum on Reddit for it. So you check out the forum and... Adverts Everywhere. No actual discussion. No thoughts and feelings. The quite literal "Looking for X, must be Y". You could see that on the Xbox LFG Service, NOT on a forum.   Am I blaming the mods? No. Hell no. They do what they do and thats it. The mod that replied told me whats going on. I blame the "community" if you can even call them that. Newsflash here boys, saying "Looking for a 90+ Striker, must have 5star weak foot" doesnt make you part of anything.   Its ridiculous to think that THATS the way the Reddit should be run. This reddit, quite frankly, should be treated as an open communication between The Pro Clubs players, and EA. Thats literally what every other Video Game Subreddit does. Do you really think EA want to see "Must have Second Wind and 4 Star skill moves" when looking for feedback. Will they take it on board? Not the point. If this Sub succeeds and hits a good number, maybe theyll actually do something with Pro Clubs.  Was I a bit too harsh? Yeah, probably. Thats on me. But calling me a troll for actually trying to improve what we have is wrong. Fundamentally, wrong. I'd rather be a troll in a good community, than a "normie" in an advertisers wet dream.  To the mods (or mod, apparently) only thing I can say is bring aboard a few more decent mods, get all the advertising spam removed/put into a single megathread, and see where that gets us. Hopefully in a year when this place in thriving we might get a decent update to the gamemode we love! [SEP] > Then both of you are fucking idiots  lol. you actually expect me to consider anything you're saying after opening with that?   > Paragraph 1:   Uhh okay, sounds like you're taking this a little too serious. Just a video game mode mate.   > Am i blaming the mods? No. Hell No.   Your literal opening line was "Top tier subreddit bros!" in the most sarcastic way possible. You can say you're not blaming anybody, but nobody believes you. You're coming off as a smug asshole.   > This reddit, quite frankly, should be treated as an open communication between The Pro Clubs players, and EA.   umm.. you really think anybody from EA is gonna mosey on over here and say "WOW! this massive 5000 person sub really dislikes a small, non-profitable game mode, one of over a dozen that we offer on our game? we should definitely put the resources and man-power into fixing it!" Guess what? EA has their own forums and people complain on there all the time about the state of the game. Do they make any significant changes after all these issues? The game iteself is evidence to that.   I think you're confusing what people want this sub to be about, and what you want this sub to be about. I don't need reddit to bitch about EA. In fact, I don't need to bitch about EA at all. It's fruitless and is a waste of time and energy, not to mention the fact that its emotionally draining. I don't need that shit in my life. I'm not trying to be a part of a community. I don't think a lot of people are. Its not like you interact with people you're playing against do you? You interact with your teammates. That's why I come on here, to look for teammates. To grow my ever-expanding group of guys that i've become friends with. Do i gaf about player's that aren't on my team? I mean, I don't wish anything bad on anyone, but not really.   > I blame the "community" if you can even call them that.  Ya, feel free to leave and make your own. Many have tried and many have failed. It won't take off. Once again, you're confusing your own wants with what this community wants (ya, I said it). Bonus: poking jabs at the group you're trying to empower to be better isn't gonna get you very far.   > If this Sub succeeds and hits a good number, maybe theyll actually do something with Pro Clubs.   again, delusional af. No they won't. Please wake up.   > But calling me a troll for actually trying to improve what we have is wrong.   Plot Twist: nobody wants the improvements you're imposing.   > To the mods (or mod, apparently) only thing I can say is bring aboard a few more decent mods, get all the advertising spam removed/put into a single megathread, and see where that gets us. Hopefully in a year when this place in thriving we might get a decent update to the gamemode we love!   Classic backhanded compliment and attacking the mods once again. We've done the megathread thing. It didn't work. Guess why? NOBODY WANTS IT. Lol. I'm really excited for this community you're trying to create, though!  Last point, because i've wasted way too much time on you, and you obviously didn't reply to my other comment. If you have something you want to discuss, why don't you make a post about it? Just go to r/fifaclubs , click on create post, and type in the text you want to talk about! See, its easy! Unless you have been making posts and nobody wants to discuss anything with you? But do you blame them? You seem very open and friendly, especially with great lines like:   > Top tier subreddit bros!  > Then both of you are fucking idiots.   > I blame the "community" if you can even call them that.   > Its ridiculous to think that THATS the way the Reddit should be run.   > Newsflash here boys, saying "Looking for a 90+ Striker, must have 5star weak foot" doesnt make you part of anything.   > To the mods (or mod, apparently) only thing I can say is bring aboard a few more decent mods   Please, continue to tell us how this sub is shit. and then, without taking into consideration any of the points we bring up, continue to call us idiots and speak condescendingly towards us! Great idea. You're just a fucking child at a keyboard, not the leader of the new FIFA e-sports era. Grow the fuck up.
You should just act normal around her. Find common interests talk about those. Like: '' oh, hi btw did you get the last thing the professor talked about, cause I dont really get it? You look like a bright one, could you help?'' or '' hey, have you seen that movie or series or whatever'' just find a common topic and make the conversation snowball up. And then at the end of the convo say something like '' nice to meet you. We should hang around sometime''. And then you wait maybe a week or two before taking the initiative ( if she doesnt do that) and approach her again. Treat her as a friend instead as something you want to get. Dont approach in a flirting manner cause most girls will get warning signs the moment you do. Hope it helps.  [SEP] > You look like a bright one, could you help?''  This sounds more condescending, and like you're an old man and pandering than flirting
OK, well here's the thing, if you are one of those Atheists who hear, "God Bless You" and you roll your eyes or pfft at them, or take any mention of any religious context to make a remark... you really are the problem to these people, you ARE the asshole. It only has to happen to a religious person a couple of times before it's too much for them. Remember they are accustomed to everything being at the status-quo setting of Christians just naturally being "a default for all in a western country".    We all have that friend who turns two incidents of anything into "oh that happens to me all the time" type exaggerations. Christians are just having a that kind of bad reaction to suddenly having people not taking their bullshit and not saying anything. [SEP] > "God Bless You" and you roll your eyes or pfft at them, or take any mention of any religious context to make a remark... you really are the problem to these people, you ARE the asshole.   There's "god bless you" but then there's "it's all right, you'll get to understand it when you grow up", smiling and nodding condescendingly if you dare mention your views, and stuff. In other words, a lot of ways to piss off people subtly without directly attacking them with explicit insults etc. Even "god bless you" may be easily told in a particular tone that would make clear quite a different thing is implied.
I am a Janeway fan as well, and I am a man. I think the majority of the hate for Janeway is sexism, whether the complainer is consciously sexist or not, with lots of confirmation bias using plot and character issues. Kirk (for example) was, on multiple occasions, an abysmal leader, and at times an unbelievably goofy caricature. Despite being one of the fan favorites, Kirk could be easily argued as the worst captain. No character is perfect, no writing is perfect, and no acting is perfect either. Even my favorite captain, Picard, had his moments.  Yes, Janeway broke rules and was not always in the moral right. She, like any real person, made judgment calls, some of which were bad ones. Like every captain in Trek, she broke the prime directive or the temporal prime directive whenever she disagreed with it. At times, her reasoning and moral compass in one episode seems to be at odds with herself from another episode. These qualities are not unique to Janeway, and they are not unique to Voyager.  When it comes down to it, Janeway managed to be a tough-as-nails leader who commanded with authority and strength, while still generally maintaining her humanity and emotion and morality. She is not perfect, but as human beings are not perfect, that is to be expected. Say what you will about Kate Mulgrew, but she managed (more often than not) to portray the character in a moving and convincing way, and I still consider Voyager a fantastic series.  There's coffee in that nebula. [SEP] > I think the majority of the hate for Janeway is sexism  That's a dismissive and condescending argument to make, and it holds no water. What a lot of people have a problem with is that Voyager was so horribly written. It turned the Prime Directive from a guideline into dogma, and turned the captaincy from a position where feedback and suggestions are welcome to a 'my way or the highway' dictatorship. Even Kate Mulgrew has said that she hated how bad the writing was, and eventually embraced how ridiculous her character was in the hopes of keeping the show watchable.
I don't think it's that they dislike us as a group, the problem is the ones they have met have treated them wrong (teasing, humiliation and general abuse) as such they're very apprehensive about our motives.   To be honest i don't blame them, when they've gone through it multiple times it's almost easy to see and understand why it's come to be almost expected for any sign of kindness shown to them to just be a facade for incoming abuse.  Edit  I will admit that i have seen some posts from sdp that lean onto bdp basically being a bragging sub, while some people do brag, most posts like that are shot down for being just a humblebrag. I think for some they don't see a big dick owner as ever having a problem, which is sadly not true. [SEP] >I don't think it's that they dislike us as a group  I do dislike BDP as a group. Some individuals are alright but the group is pretty shitty IMO. The members here regularly troll us, but now that someone else trolled us, we're suddenly "sister subreddits." Riiiiiiight. Like a week ago, the popular consensus here was that SDP members were "toxic and delusional." Now people here are trying to say they empathize with us. Bullshit.  This whole thread is just condescending virtue signaling. Nobody here legitimately gives a shit. They just want people to think they do. 
I am a feminist (meaning I believe in equality of status and opportunity) and I care very much about this issue. Personally I wouldn't put increased male suicide down to 'toxic masculinity', I'd put it mostly down to poor funding and awareness of mental health services, and a lack of general understanding about mental health issues.  That said, I do think there has been a culture of 'boys don't cry' that means men take in a message that not being able to cope is girly, i.e. negative. That needs to be challenged. My archetypal working class dad has had severe anxiety for most of his life. His preferred method of dealing with it was to tell himself to get a grip while drinking 4+ cans of super strength every night. Every time he had a panic attack family members and workmates would tell him to get a grip. He felt very stupid.   Eventually, after much badgering, he went to the doctor and got citalopram and counselling. Boom. Life changed. He says the only thing that stopped him going to the doctor was 'feeling like a dickhead' for not being able to cope with it by himself.  [SEP] > I do think there has been a culture of 'boys don't cry'  A message eagerly promoted by feminists, who invented "mansplaining" to silence men who object to being mistreated.
That's because you lack imagination. Some lots have rentable spaces that are also open for hourly parking. There was a front page post a few weeks ago of a guy with a sign on his car telling people to stop messing with his car because he rents two parking spots and he parks his car in the middle. Individuals like you who lack imagination will make premature judgments about that guy and revel in your ignorance to the reality of the situation. Assholes with similar lack of imagination will mess with the car due to their ignorance. My brother-in-law owns a chain of grocery stores in Western Virginia and he obviously owns the lots of those stores. He drives in a nice car and he can park however he wants to because it's his property. But again, self-righteous assholes will leave snarky notes and mess with his car by leaving trash on it. I should tell him to leave a note like the guy above telling people he owns ALL the spots in the parking lot and to tell assholes to fuck off. You don't like it, you don't have to shop there.  Are there real assholes who park like idiots for no reason? Sure. That's why I said:  >The complete fucking asshole is the guy keying cars, not necessarily the guy who owns the car.  And you are making stupid assumptions:  >How you could consider a guy who parks like this as not being an asshole is beyond me.  What guy? Who are you calling an asshole? We were speaking in hypothetical generalities. [SEP] >Individuals like you who lack imagination will make premature judgments about that guy and revel in your ignorance to the reality of the situation. Assholes with similar lack of imagination will mess with the car due to their ignorance.  Wow...aren't you the arrogant, condescending shitbag of a judgemental asshole? Do you speak like this to people IRL? You must be a real prick.  When I said, "a guy who parks like this", I meant a guy that actually parks like this. If you were speaking hypothetically, and you felt as though your point was misconstrued, you could have made mention in a manner that doesn't make you come across like a complete cocksucker. Instead, you chose to be a faggot motherfucker about it. Fuck off you motherfucker.
> Not just allowing but facilitating one Signal user to be able to view whether any of their contacts (which is to say, any phone number they feel like adding to their contacts list) are also Signal users presents a privacy and security risk.   Signals goals aren't the same as your goals. You've read that Signal is a secure messenger and from that you've made certain assumptions that are wrong which is why you're having trouble understanding. To quote Moxie:  > If we were going to rank our priorities, they would be in this order: > > 1) Make mass surveillance impossible. > > 2) Stop targeted attacks against crypto nerds. > > It's not that we don't find #2 laudable, but optimizing for #1 takes precedence when we're making decisions. > > If you don't want to use your phone number, don't use it. You can register with any GV, Twilio, Voicepulse, or other throwaway VoIP number. > > If you don't want to run Chrome, use Chromium instead. > > If you don't want to use Google Play Services, use GcmCore. > > The world you want this software for is not the world that everyone else lives in. You can certainly make it work in that world with a little effort, but because of how we've prioritized our objectives, that's not the default experience. [SEP] > Signals goals aren't the same as your goals. You've read that Signal is a secure messenger and from that you've made certain assumptions that are wrong which is why you're having trouble understanding.   I've been using Signal (TextSecure) since its initial release for going on eight years now, so the condescending tone isn't necessary. This may in turn be hard for you to understand, but I can both greatly appreciate the value a tool brings and at the same time point out its serious shortcomings and problems, because it's not me or 'crypto nerds' who are affected by them, it is ordinary users who may not think through the various issues that, say, exposing a phone number can bring. 
In this track, Heems sometimes raps, sometimes leaves the beat and talks. His voice sounds mellow or sedated. That's the similarity I was referring to.   I do agree that they're very different, though. Heems is for hip-hop heads, Drake is pop music for teeny boppers that want something that sounds "more urban" than One D or the biebs.    [SEP] >Heems is for hip-hop heads, Drake is pop music for teeny boppers that want something that sounds "more urban" than One D or the biebs.   Why so condescending? Heems is good. Drake is good too. You act like having pop appeal and having teenage fans are bad things.
> I know. That's exactly what I said, back when you said that physical power isn't worth building into because it doesn't benefit you much. I pointed out that every Assassin build path leads to a lot of physical power, and so you will benefit from the scaling either way  No. I didn't agree with you. Listen. Try to listen one time. If you have more power your scaling benefits you more....you with me so far? So if you have LESS power your scaling benefits you less and is not as meaningful. You got that? There is a difference between having higher power and lower power. Even though you will always have some power in your build, the MORE power you have will make your higher scaling more meaningful.  This is important because NOT all assassins build the same way. If you are building for auto attacks like on kali you will have less power in your build because you need things like attack speed.  What this means is that having higher scaling doesn't necessarily mean as much as you think it does. If your build doesn't prioritize power (and it shouldn't) then having high scaling isn't as strong as it would otherwise appear. When we look at mages and see a character with like 160% scaling on an ability it makes a huge difference because they will have the magic power to make that add like 800 damage to the ability. That's a huge deal. But we look at Susano's 1 with 180% scaling and since he doesn't build as much power it doesn't matter as much--it only provides like 400 damage.  So when you compare Susano with lower overall base damage and higher scaling with other gods it doesn't matter as much as you would think. He doesn't build as much power or ability damage modifiers as other gods who might have lower scaling and even if his scaling can make up for that his base damage is still not high enough to make it OP like everyone seems to think.  ----------------  Holy shit I just read the second argument you made here. It's just too much. You actually have some sort of disability. Your reading comprehension is so bad. I say something agreeing with you at first saying how "yes, everyone will have power in their build" and you think I am saying that as my own point to counter something you said. Like, you are seriously inept.   > You've literally spent this entire conversation cherry-picking individual moves and characters that compare favourably due to having additional, specific modifiers that go beyond the base damage and make their damage output more impressive  +  > That's ironic, coming from you.  You are still missing the point of me saying things like that. Holy shit. There is a difference between me pointing that out to illustrate something to you and you outright going "Well he has high base damage because these 2 abilities are higher than what others have". Me pointing out a single ability like Guan's ult is meant to demonstrate a point to you, not to say that Guan is better or something. You using two of his abilities to make a claim and disagree with my statement that his base damage is not high overall is something different. But I don't expect you to understand at this point and I know I am just wasting my time.  It's just pointless to explain this to you. You're so clueless. You can't understand what you are reading and your reasoning ability is just flawed beyond what is required to salvage this conversation. [SEP] > No. I didn't agree with you. Listen. Try to listen one time. If you have more power your scaling benefits you more....you with me so far? So if you have LESS power your scaling benefits you less and is not as meaningful. You got that? There is a difference between having higher power and lower power. Even though you will always have some power in your build, the MORE power you have will make your higher scaling more meaningful.  Yes you did. You agreed that Assassins end up with a healthy amount of physical power in their builds without going out of their way to build it (not that they 'have to go out of their way'). Otherwise, just stating the obvious here.  > This is important because NOT all assassins build the same way. If you are building for auto attacks like on kali you will have less power in your build because you need things like attack speed. What this means is that having higher scaling doesn't necessarily mean as much as you think it does. If your build doesn't prioritize power (and it shouldn't) then having high scaling isn't as strong as it would otherwise appear. When we look at mages and see a character with like 160% scaling on an ability it makes a huge difference because they will have the magic power to make that add like 800 damage to the ability. That's a huge deal. But we look at Susano's 1 with 180% scaling and since he doesn't build as much power it doesn't matter as much--it only provides like 400 damage.  All ability-based Assassins build almost identically, sans having a crit basis in their kit or being Thor. Your point about attack speed is irrelevant because Susano won't be building it, he'll be building items that grant power to pump his scaling. Unless by some miracle Susano ends up being built for autos, then...yeah, his itemization won't be granting him much power. Your build often does and should prioritise power, especially on a physical Assassin with large scaling. How hard is that to comprehend? Again, what builds/items are you using to calculate these scaling numbers? You keep throwing around vague statements and figures left, right and center and every time I press you for evidence, you just repeat the statement.  > So when you compare Susano with lower overall base damage and higher scaling with other gods it doesn't matter as much as you would think. He doesn't build as much power or ability damage modifiers as other gods who might have lower scaling and even if his scaling can make up for that his base damage is still not high enough to make it OP like everyone seems to think.  What other Junglers have this combination of base damage and scaling? He will be building plenty of power (like near every Jungler), and even so, here's where your argument is de-railing itself...again. You keep going on and on about everyone else is calling him 'OP'. I...didn't say that. I said he seems good. Never claimed he was overpowered. You're straw-manning here so fucking hard it's unreal. How about you start paying more attention to this actual discussion, because it's clear you're repeatedly missing the point.  > Holy shit I just read the second argument you made here. It's just too much. You actually have some sort of disability. Your reading comprehension is so bad. I say something agreeing with you at first saying how "yes, everyone will have power in their build" and you think I am saying that as my own point to counter something you said. Like, you are seriously inept.  Uh-huh, paragraph of insults. Good job. That makes a really good substitute for elucidating on your argument and providing evidence to support your points. Man, if you were reaching before...also you've missed the point, again.  > You are still missing the point of me saying things like that. Holy shit. There is a difference between me pointing that out to illustrate something to you and you outright going "Well he has high base damage because these 2 abilities are higher than what others have". Me pointing out a single ability like Guan's ult is meant to demonstrate a point to you, not to say that Guan is better or something. You using two of his abilities to make a claim and disagree with my statement that his base damage is not high overall is something different. But I don't expect you to understand at this point and I know I am just wasting my time.  Not at all. I highlighted the issues with the illustration perfectly clearly and demonstrated why it was an inept comparison. To demonstrate that Susano is redundant and has no place on a team, you need to compare him to characters that actually share his role and prove that they do everything he does better. Citing two characters with completely different kits/itemization from a different role is not only redundant in and of itself, but cherry-picking specific abilities that have mechanical modifiers which enhance the damage is not evidence of mere base damage being superior, it's evidence of mechanical modifiers being effective. What you've 'illustrated' is not what your actual argument is, and you've merely highlighted a continuing desire to not actually make valid comparisons and illustrations for a healthy discussion.  > It's just pointless to explain this to you. You're so clueless. You can't understand what you are reading and your reasoning ability is just flawed beyond what is required to salvage this conversation.  Uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that, maybe it helps you sleep at night. Maybe you can stave your e-pride this time and actually stop wasting time. You're not proving anything here. I've quite literally asked you repeatedly to put forth actual evidence in terms of builds and items to support some of the arguments and varying numbers you're throwing around. You're practically pathologically incapable of letting this discussion go even though it's pointless. The argument you want to prove is not the one you're making, you haven't provided a single shred of the evidence I've asked for and instead just hidden behind obfuscation, repetition and insults, and by now you've just fallen to hypocrisy and playground children-levels of reasoning Also, for all your talk of 'missing the point and illustrations', it strikes me as incredibly ironic that you're still so oblivious to how this discussion has played out and how easily you've been strung along even though I never actually argued the point that Susano was OP like apparently everyone seems to think. Also, let me inform you about how a reasonable discussion should go, since you're obviously confused.  1.) claim is made  2.) counter-point is made  3.) original person makes subsequent counter-point  and this continues as the discussion expands. What has happened here, is the following:  1.) Susano is not horrendously OP like everyone says  2.) He's pretty freaking good though  3.) No, he's not OP stop lying. Stupid casuals!  4.) His numbers are high, good capabilities with his kit  5.) He's worse than like, every Assassin ever, and no Assassin builds into power wtf  6.) Except most of them do  7.) His scaling only gives him like 10 more damage  8.) With what build?  9.) It's less than a mage ult  10.) With what build, and what ult?  11.) Guan Yu and Bellona have much higher base damage  12.) With their additional mechanical modifiers beyond the base damage to make them more powerful/impressive and being an unfair and fairly useless comparison  13.) You're just too dumb to understand my incredible illustration  14.) Still waiting on those builds and evidence  15.) Repeats all of the same points  16.) Counters them again, again asks for evidence  17.) Starts hurling insults like a maniac  18.) gg  You'll probably be back, with more drivel and insults, because apparently e-pride is too strong to even allow you to let go of this train-wreck. Just for future reference though, you're probably not going to go far in any discussion if you misconstrue the nature of the conversation and start throwing a hissy fit when people don't agree with you and decide to start condescending for absolutely no reason. Quite funny, really.  Not even slightly surprised that you decided to post again after saying you're done. Won't be surprised at all to see another post come through by tomorrow.   
> Kyrie is much more consistent and clutch than Klay, Klay can explode and give you those crazy games but he went through a lot of cold stretches last season.   Lol. I'm not even going to get into this other than to say clutch is little more than media narrative and confirmation bias.  >It's not all about stats and efficiency  So when I say Kyrie isn't a top-5 scorer, you try to back your opinion with stats. When I beat you at your own game, you decide to hide behind the "eye test". Whatever you say bro.  >I go by the eye test a lot and in my eyes Kyrie is one of the best scorers in the league  Just saying, I'm not going to put a whole lot of stock into any eye test that tells me Kyrie Irving is a better scorer than Lebron.  >maybe not top 5  Glad I could change your mind [SEP] > Lol. I'm not even going to get into this other than to say clutch is little more than media narrative and confirmation bias.  if you actually watched cavs games over the past couple of years you'd realize how many clutch 4th quarter buckets Kyrie gets, multiple game winners, game tie-ers, etc. Just watch the highlights from his 57 point performance against the spurs, i don't think there are more players than I could count on one hand that could do what he did against that team  5 seconds left, down by one, do you want the ball in Kyrie's hands or Klay Thompson? The answer is easy  Also, try not to be so condescending, it comes off as rude and makes me value your opinion less. I'm just trying to have a discussion, the disrespectful tone is not neccessary
> He made his intentions ~~in doing as such~~ for doing so clear when he threatened to publish the e-mails if the other person did not stop speaking about Sam.  This is false. He did not say he would publish the emails if Klein "did not stop speaking about Sam"... there is no evidence that Klein had "spoken about Sam", only written about him, but even if we can guess that you mean written, I'm sure Sam would've loved if Klein had changed his tune and all of a sudden started speaking/writing about Sam in flattering terms... and had apologized. What Sam actually said was that he would publish the emails if Klein "continued in this way"... we don't know, by that statement alone, exactly what he meant by that.  > He made it clear he was threatening to publish private correspondence without the consent of the other party if the person did not stop talking about him. He tried to exploit his following as a weapon to fight his personal battles.  I'm definitely not saying Sam's actions were defensible but you're taking quite an uncharitable leap to assume that he was using his following as a weapon and not attempting to rectify what he saw as a character assassination. Again, one doesn't have to assume that's what he was doing to allow that that may have been within the realm of possibility. You are choosing to infer an uncharitable reading of the situation.  > But how is it the case that you could still believe Sam Harris to be a trustworthy person?  No one should be thought of as trustworthy/untrustworthy in a binary sense. People are trustworthy to varying degrees depending on the topic, context, etc. No one should take what Sam says on faith... but to assume that the Klein debacle should make everyone conclude that Sam is never to be trusted again, on any point he makes, 100% of the time is an overly-reductive way to look at the situation, IMO.  > In the Chomsky e-mails for example, Sam came off as naively believing the US intentions were whatever the US says their intentions are  I don't think the point Sam was making was that US intentions were whatever the US says they are but that the degree to which they actually do have good intentions should be taken into consideration. It wasn't a controversial place that he was trying to start from but Chomsky was getting hung up on specifics and making philosophical/moral misstatements and Sam vice versa.  I'm trying to be specific in my responses to your critique but I have to say that you seem to be doing a lot of mind-reading here about Sam's intentions and what his base does or doesn't believe. It's hard to respond to generalizations like these when you're not being very specific about what exactly you're objecting to... but as for your other objection.   > This transitions into Sam's defense of Damore when Christian accused him of being in the alt-right. First, I see nothing wrong with saying this. Plenty of people belong in the alt-right who do not openly admit it.  I think this statement gets to the heart of your objection... you are completely comfortable labeling someone as "being in the alt-right" simply because "plenty of people belong in the alt-right who do not openly admit it." In other words, ‘since it's possible, why not go ahead and make the accusation?’ This is the height of intellectually dishonesty, IMO. It's not a matter of expecting Damore to "admit" being in the alt-right, before one should be willing to make the accusation, it's just that the accusation shouldn't be made on insufficient evidence. And some (shocker) may disagree that there is sufficient evidence to make such a damaging indictment.  > Instead, much of the Sam fan base seems to naively and gullibly believe Sam's intentions to be what Sam states they are, disregarding any non-confirming evidence and almost deliberately refusing to infer normal inferences from communication.  You might see some people's unwillingness to grant that it's ok to accuse Damore of being a member of the alt-right as "refusing to infer normal inferences" but has it ever occurred to you that "normal" might in fact be a subjective assessment and that others might simply have a difference of opinion? Not everyone has to come to the same conclusions as you and just because people come to different conclusions doesn't necessarily mean that they are unwilling to use critical thinking to evaluate someone's intentions beyond what they have stated.  Yes, I'm sure you can find people that fit your description but it seems like you're trying to make definitive statements about "so many Sam fans" or "much of the Sam fan base" that are basically unfalsifiable if you don't point to anything beyond anecdotal evidence.  [SEP] >This is false. He did not say he would publish the emails if Klein "did not stop speaking about Sam"... there is no evidence that Klein had "spoken about Sam", only written about him  You need to re-read the e-mails. This is exactly the message Sam sent. Your pedantry does not constitute a valid point. Remember - we don't quote mine Sam, he doesn't like that. Instead, we appreciate his communication in its overall meaning and context, and if you missed the part where Sam did this, you missed a critical part of what Sam did. Re-read.  >No one should be thought of as trustworthy/untrustworthy in a binary sense.  I simply would never follow someone who would exploit my loyalty to them and attempt to leverage me as a weapon against a perceived enemy. I would also never follow someone who would condescend to me the way Sam did to his followers in accusing them of not following the plot. And someone who lacks the integrity to acknowledge how out of line they were in publishing e-mails without the consent of the other party. It's funny how people proclaim to follow Sam for his values, but then make excuses left and right - or outright deny as you started right off the bat doing - when Sam not only fails to adhere to his own values, but also abdicates accountability for himself and fails to take self-ownership for his own failures.   You can really see how Sam only pretends to take self-ownership. Here he defended Damore under the guise of integrity and honesty and self-ownership - yet Sam refused to take ownership for much of his egregious, untrustworthy behavior. He has shown he is not even trustworthy to communicate with privately.   >This is the height of intellectually dishonesty, IMO  How awful that you think noticing someone's views and critically analyzing their speech and actions is "intellectual dishonesty." I take a different view: intellectual dishonesty is adamantly refusing to use your own thinking capacities to infer one's attitude, and instead insisting on only believing the words that come straight out of their mouths. How naïve, how intellectually lazy, how irrational. Sam has cultivated this attitude in his following, and it serves him well, as he can then spout of his intentions and expect to be believed for his stated views and accuse anyone who infers his mindset from his overall meaning and context that they are being uncharitable and mind-reading and making assumptions.  Inference is a crucial part of effective communication, critical thinking skills, and rationality. If you call that "intellectually dishonest" - then congratulations, you are exactly the unreasonable and naïve follower I was describing in my OP.  
Incorrect. You don't seem to understand how much more 1billion is over 10million, doesn't matter how many servers you're going, eventually your average user is going to be worth less and so is their experience. I'm sorry but I've put this down twice, you'll learn in time... I can't keep responding to you just because you have a "big corporation owns everything" belief. The 100-1 scale is probably more like 500-1 but I wasn't intending on people being blind enough to not understand. [SEP] >eventually your average user is going to be worth less and so is their experience.  By what mechanism would YouTube's worth per user be lower?   I've explained the mechanism by which my belief works. Also your explanation of my stance is not at all accurate. You haven't explained anything. You're making a claim but not actually saying why you think it's the case, and that shows a total lack of understanding, or a total lack of capability to explain your point.  Yes, I get it, youtube is bigger than vimeo. Why would youtube being bigger than vimeo raise the cost per user? There are a couple of explanations I might understand and agree with, you have provided none.  You can't bully and condescend to people into agreeing you when they have intellectual confidence. Put up or shut up.
> So Trump was at least addressing the economic realities people in the Midwest were facing, while Clinton ignored them. That's another way of saying Democrats lost credibility with the working class.  She wasn't denying them though, it's just that her proposed solutions sounded less appealing to the uneducated than his did.   >You can spout all the macro numbers you want. Go to Decatur, IL and tell them how great trade agreements are. They know exactly which countries are manufacturing what used to be made in Decatur.  1. Tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA won't restore cities like Decatur like he would want you to believe. Companies aren't going to make massive investments because of tariffs that could be gone in 2 years.  2. Other countries have developed a lot more over the past few decades. The US is no longer the majority of global imports. Even if the US imposes massive tariffs and tries to make everything themselves, they still won't be able to compete with China to export to other developed countries such as those in Europe. Much of America's prosperity that came from being a manufacturing powerhouse came from exports. Strong unions then made America less competitive due to rising costs, which made foreign nations more competitive.  3. The imports on Steel and Aluminum are putting millions of manufacturing jobs at risk because they make the US less competitive because of increased input costs. If steel is a major ingredient, why not move your factory to Mexico and avoid the tariff? Many plants have already closed because of his tariffs.  Manufacturing would've left America in the absence of NAFTA anyways. America is not the only importer of goods. As other countries that globalized decide to buy from other countries like Mexico, US producers would've struggled anyways.  I find it funny that he ran on saving rural areas, yet he's destroying them more while helping urban areas. The corporate tax cuts are helping large businesses in urban centers. But his tariffs have resulted in retaliatory tariffs that have caused immense harm to farmers in the midwest, manufacturing plants closing or layoffs due to rising steel/aluminium costs, and reduced investment due to trade uncertainty.  He made unrealistic promises that uneducated voters felt were realistic. And this is exactly why macro should be a required course in high school.  >Democrats need to learn that fast if they want to beat Trump in '20.  He won't even win the primary in '20. He only won the 2016 primary by mistake because votes were too split. Many people in his own party walked away. With all of the scandals there's no way he'll win again. [SEP] > She wasn't denying them though, it's just that her proposed solutions sounded less appealing to the uneducated than his did.  Clinton's solutions were weak sauce nonsense and people could see that. She barely campaigned in the Midwest and largely ignored the issue. Obama at least talked about towns hurt by trade deals, like his stops in Galesburg, IL. Sanders talked about the problems with trade deals, including how they contribute to the global concentration of wealth. Trump talked about the issue. Clinton ignored it. That's why she lost the Midwest.   And thanks for reminding me that the condescending tone of Clinton and her surrogates didn't help either. When people are told retraining is the answer but none of the jobs they can retrain for are hiring with 60 miles and they don't have the resources to relocate, then people see retraining as the horseshit non-solution it is. But sure, just call them uneducated morons and see how many votes that wins.   >Tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA won't restore cities like Decatur like he would want you to believe.  Sure, but acknowledging many towns were harmed means something. The Clinton tactic of trying to gaslight people about the benefits of trade with national economic statistics has no relevance to people in dying towns. So when Trump comes along and he's the only candidate addressing the reality people see around them, of course it resonates.   You don't need to convince me that Trump's solutions are nonsense. But it's really disingenuous to pretend that trade agreements didn't have a downside that harmed many people. Yes they did contribute to suppressing wages and exporting jobs. Yes they do contribute to the concentration of wealth in major towns and among the super rich.   If Democrats are going to beat Trump they need someone who will talk honestly about those harmed by NAFTA & WTO. It will take someone with credibility on the issue like Sherrod Brown or Sanders. Another corporate Democrat like Clinton blowing smoke will lose to Trump.
> That shit will haunt you and your relationship will rot.   I'd have to disagree with that. My SO and I had that discussion at the beginning of our relationship. We were in our mid 20s, recent college grads, and both knew that we "had a good time" in college. I think it was just better that we knew about each other's past (and heard it directly from the person) rather than just assume things. If you are a mature adult with a healthy outlook towards sex (i.e., you don't see it as dirty or wrong), you should be able to handle this type of information without letting it sour your relationship. Then again, I'm also the type of person who discusses getting tested for STIs (sexual health is important, y'all) and it'd be difficult to have this conversation if you can't handle the thought of your SO having sex with anyone other than you.  FWIW, we had each been with over 20 people (admittedly, a little more than that for me), and have been together almost 5 years now. [SEP] > If you are a mature adult with a healthy outlook towards sex   This always come across as kind of condescending to me, and I apologize if that wasn't your intent. I consider myself a healthy adult and I've had some really great relationships before winding up with my current partner, but I wouldn't be able to date someone with an extensive sexual history if I was made aware of it. I don't view sex as wrong and I don't think less of a persons character for having lots of it, but I personally attach a deeper meaning to it and want a partner who does the same.   I just don't think needing the nitty gritty is a prerequisite to a healthy relationship and personally wouldn't feel better for having the information. I don't need them to pretend they were the virgin Mary before me, but an unspoken understanding works for some people and I don't really think that means a relationship is any weaker for it.
The coaching and mediocre goaltending is definitely at fault as well, but Virtanen melted down in big ways at the worst possible times. Also, many of the downvotes are simply because of who I am. I've pissed off a great deal of this sub by not being blindly positive. [SEP] >by not being blindly positive  Dude, come on. That's not why you are a lightning rod, and you know it. It's because of how condescending and disrespectful you can be sometimes. You wanna talk about accountability for a 19-year-old? How about you practice it, too?
My apologies, I misread your Turkey statement as Turkey being directly involved in shipping jihadists. However, you seem to believe that this could have gone only one way based on evidence that Turkish jihadists were in possession of sarin. It's certainly circumstantial at best, but again I find it hard to believe these guys slap together homemade rockets full of Sarin. Again, it just doesn't work like that. You don't just duct tape a barrel full of gas to the top of a rocket and let them go. You seem to think this is like a high school rocketry project where you just build it and fly it. This is a tad more complicated than that. There were even unexploded shells, INTACT rockets (read: not barrels with boosters on them) around the Damascus area.  I never said there were ever two sides in this conflict, either, so please don't twist my words. There are many rebel groups vying for control of what will inevitably be Assad's fall. Some of them (like you may see on that super super misleading Glenn Beck clip circulating the web right now) of just exactly what type of guys we probably shouldn't support. Never once did I say this is some 2 sided good guy bad guy war. I did, however, say that GAS WAS USED. It doesn't matter which side used gas, THAT side has to be accountable.  If it so turns out rebels staged an attack to get intervention, then those are to be held responsible. If, however, it was Assad (and possessing the largest stockpile of Sarin and chemical weapons and having delivery systems readily available to them is somewhat more telling than having a couple of kilos of Sarin, which degrades fairly rapidly in its poisonous form), then it's on his ass. Al-Nusra, the Syrian Liberation Front. WHOEVER. Gas is not to be used ever.  It's fine to have a reasonable level of skepticism about something. It's entirely something different to claim to know for a fact exactly what proof there is and that the President (who has more intelligence information at his fingertips than you or I could count) is straight up lying about something just because you don't think he's right. Don't waste either of our time by claiming you know the president and his administration are lying right off the bat because you saw a video with an inconsistency in it or something. [SEP] >You seem to think this is like a high school rocketry project where you just build it and fly it. This is a tad more complicated than that.  I was a field artillery officer for four years, including two tours in Afghanistan. Stop condescending to me and listen to what I'm telling you: the rockets were described as eyewitnesses as having "homemade fins," the chemical signature of the detonating agent was not the same type of explosive used in Warsaw Pact gas warheads, and there is video of what very much appears to be irregular forces (i.e. rebels) loading an improvised gas container and detonator onto an M119 or similar piece as a form of rifle grenade. I will do my best to find you the spectrographs regarding the release agent. I am not pulling this out of my ass, I'm extremely interested in it, relatively knowledgeable about the equipment, and I am absolutely certain that it's within the capabilities of AQAP to deploy sarin this way. They are a highly sophisticated network and they get a lot of support from Middle Eastern governments depending on whom they're going after. Getting the sarin itself is by far the hardest part. A handful of cultists hospitalized 1,400 people in Tokyo with ziploc bags and sharpened umbrellas as their dispersal method. AQAP can do much better than that; I know from personal experience that jihadis are fucking crafty.  >THAT side has to be accountable.  You started this comment thread by saying that the "actual video evidence" of sarin use was a reason to believe Obama's statement that Assad used the sarin. This is what I'm saying; people hear "Sarin!" and think "bomb Assad!"  >If it so turns out rebels staged an attack to get intervention, then those are to be held responsible.  Ha! Do you really think that's going to happen? I would bet my next paycheck that if Obama had ironclad proof it was the rebels he'd still attack Assad. The point of this isn't "stop people from using gas," man. People use gas all the time and we let them. Saddam gassed the holy living shit out of the Iranians and we were all "OK, cool" and then gassed the Kurds a few years later. Remember? It only became an issue when we needed another war to fight. This is about us having an excuse to stir shit in Syria, partially over oil interests, partially to antagonize Russia, and partially (mostly) to get contractors paid.  >straight up lying about something just because you don't think he's right  That would be a bad reason to think he's lying; my reasons are more sophisticated. He's directly lied to us before, many times, very recently, on equally serious topics. He is incredibly strongly incentivized to start a US intervention in Syria for myriad reasons as detailed above. His version of events makes absolutely zero sense. I guess my question is why in the world do you think he's telling the truth?! Christ. My best advice for you is "go work for the government for a few years." You'll laugh when politicians say things on TV too.  Edited to somewhat improve my tone and remove extraneous sarcasm.
If I need to meet with some people who represent local Bitcoin community, I expect more than a few people who undoubtedly have aggressive non-neutral vision regarding Bitcoin scaling.  \>And you think it's absolutely fine to then turn around and say mean things about us behind our back?  Yes, the only though I had after that meeting was something like "hell, how is that possible that representatives of such an important community are full of that blockstream shit. Something needs to be done with that". Thankfully, the business etiquette works, and we had a nice dinner. I am glad we now have the possibility to discuss that issue in open.  I do not know whether you are that naive to believe that core's vision and censorship is a way to go -- I was on that side for quite some time, and I am fully aware of that narrative -- or you are a part of that mafia. But to me -- these days -- everything blockstream related is pure evil, and I truly hate that situation with Seoul Bitcoin. Considering the case with NO2X November letter, I have to believe it's more like you are fully aware of whats going on, and just work in accordance with a plan.  P.S. Thanks for the coffee, that was very nice of you. But please, do not represent the situation like the dinner, the dedication to understand the technology etc. were some special acts of kindness from you. Wasn't that just a part of an usual Sunday meeting? Oh, wait a minute... A meeting that is not publicly listed on a meet up group, that is only attended by 5 people, who wear all that blockstream symbolics. Sounds like a conspiracy. Cause I really felt like in some evil's den. Do you pay for that meeting from your pocket, just as for our coffee, or maybe it is privately sponsored by blockstream? [SEP] >\>And you think it's absolutely fine to then turn around and say mean things about us behind our back?  >  >Yes, \[...\] such an important community are full of that blockstream shit. Something needs to be done with that". Thankfully, the business etiquette works, and we had a nice dinner. I am glad we now have the possibility to discuss that issue in open.  Don't talk behind people's backs what you can't say to their face. Don't agree to have dinner with guys you hate. You were hiding your real thoughts and were acting nice.   > I do not know whether you are that naive to believe that core's vision and censorship is a way to go -- I was on that side for quite some time   The more reason to not be so condescending. If you had met yourself half a year ago, you would have probably marked yourself as part of a conspiracy.  >Do you pay for that meeting from your pocket, just as for our coffee, or maybe it is privately sponsored by blockstream?   I already told you we are not sponsored at all, yet you continue to insist it is not true. Your hate is blinding your objectivity. You are not open to conversation.  And let me make this extremely clear: I thought you were a nice person. The fact that you like BCH didn't change that, I respect different opinions. But your willingness to completely throw me under the bus just because of some clothing is incredibly disappointing. You have a lot of growing up to do.
This subreddit seems like an inappropriate place to see reasons why the person Bernie is running against would be good. Seriously if I saw someone make a post saying "here's why Clinton is great!" I would downvote and report despite being a Clinton supporter. This just isn't the appropriate forum for it.   OTOH it's completely appropriate for someone to respond to "Clinton is the same as trump" by saying why they aren't the same.   So you get a lot of anti Donald stuff because Bernie is very anti Donald. But you don't get a lot of pro Hillary stuff because that isn't appropriate here. Feel free to go to her subreddit to find out why people like her.  [SEP] > go to her subreddit  I have, and I regret it for the rest of my life. I don't think I can bear hearing "Bernie Bro" "Mansplaining" or "Bernie is unelectable" ad verbatim ever again. I think that sub might be more assholish and hostile than THE DONALD is to people here. 
There's a reason for that. People tend to talk about what's going on in their lives. When you're in the military, it IS your life. There's no time for much of anything else. What else do you have to talk about? [SEP] > What else do you have to talk about?  Condescending gun control protests and lack of proper weapon nomenclature, in this gentleman's case.  
This is a complication question to answer, because you have to answer it based on a cross-section of opinion, and that raises a lot of questions. Mainly one question: if an American doesn't know that the USSR fought in World War II, does that count as undervaluing the USSR's contribution, or should we exclude them from the sample? If you answer that question, your question follow from it. Here's how:   Most Americans learned what they know about World War II in high school. My high school world history textbook made the point about the eastern front very thoroughly, but nobody remembers the history they studied in high school. "You didn't know a sizable portion of the Native American population was wiped out by European diseases?" "Of course not, history class was just a bunch of patriotic propaganda, it's not like they taught us that in the fascist public school system." Yes they did, you dumb no attention paying fuck. People like that aren't even sure what century World War II happened in.  But there are people who know more than that. Far and away the largest population of Americans who take any interest in WWII are the guys who like watching military history documentaries on the History Channel. These guys definitely know about the scale and importance of the eastern front, because they bring it up in every conversation about WWII as if nobody else does. "My dad used to call my grandmother every year on June 6th. She never completely got over my great-uncle dying at Omaha Bea..." "YOU KNOW WHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IS THE EASTERN FRONT BLAH BLAH BLAH"  Between people who think "WW2" is a boy band, or possibly a model of Audi, and people who see maps of the eastern front at least once a week on the History Channel, the number of Americans left in between is negligible. So, the answer to your question depends on whether you count the former group as undervaluing the contribution of the USSR or as "no answer."    [SEP] >Yes they did, you dumb no attention paying fuck.  If you ever want to get upvotes with this demographic ALWAYS do the following:  1. Assume people have had the same life experiences as you that lead you to have knowledge in your chosen area of interest. 2. Condescend against this outsider as much as possible. 3. Always express bafflement and confusion instead of understanding. 4. Make sure to clearly label the people that you look down on, so we can all smile to ourselves at our own superiority. 
I don't think I missed the point. You kinda proven it by stating what you did. Times are changing, the majority of gamers today (incl. myself) dont want a "lifestyle". If I'm a PvP player I want to login and pvp. I dont care how I should approach my game when I'm on a pvp server. I want to PVP because that's what I am and what I care about. But open world pvp has never been my cup of tea. I just dont like how unbalanced it always has been. (Being outnumbered 5:1, getting corse camped whilst questing etc.).  But I guess there is still a small minority who dont want to change and clinge onto the old systems because in their mind they are just better. Which is perfectly fine.  If you guys find enjoyment there (and maybe with classic?) Please do so, because that's all what matters in the end, having fun with what you are doing. [SEP] > Times are changing, the majority of gamers today (incl. myself) dont want a "lifestyle".  No shit? /s   Which is why we are leaving. The game is catering to you and yours so me and mine are going back to a game that caters to us.  >But I guess there is still a small minority who dont want to change and clinge onto the old systems because in their mind they are just better.     Holy shit, are you fucking kidding me with this BS? "clinge onto the old system"? WTF? Can you be any more condescending? How about this, it's a fucking video game we play for entertainment and the direction it's going is not entertaining to some of use so we are switching to a version that is entertaining.  Yeah, I'm done with you.
I actually don't have a Twitter account, and I'm not active on Facebook or really any form of social media other than Reddit. So I will freely admit that maybe I'm missing something. If people are literally saying Trump is Hitler and is going to round up the gays and Mexicans and put them in camps, then yeah that's stupid.  [SEP] > So I will freely admit that maybe I'm missing something.  Yeah, and that thing is called perspective. I have a Trump sticker on my car. In the last 30 days, myself and literally everyone that I personally know who also has a Trump sticker on their car, has had their car vandalized.  That's 13 people, one of whom had his front windshield smashed and "Your Vote Is A Hate Crime" soaped onto the back windshield.  I wear my Trump hat about half the time I go outside since the election. I get flipped off nigh constantly, and have had liberals scream shit at me three or four times since the election.  You cannot tell me that a little trolling on the internet is equivalent to the obvious, vocal and vitriolic amount of hate that is being poured out against Trump supporters. And you absolutely cannot tell me that the left as a whole is actually trying to listen to, or understand us. They are not. You personally might be, but to the rest of the world the left is on an unprecedented blitz of thought control across every single social media and news media platform in existence. Facebook, twitter and reddit are all engaged in a censorship and speech suppression campaign against us.  And you know what else I think? I think the side that engages in tyrannical thought control is probably the bad guys, historically speaking. So don't condescend to tell me that we need to lighten up, or that the left actually wants unity or healing in this country. I don't believe that for a second.  >If people are literally saying Trump is Hitler and is going to round up the gays and Mexicans and put them in camps, then yeah that's stupid.  Yes, and people literally are saying that. People kept posting something from "pink news" about how various sexual deviant groups are screaming in the streets because we're going to put them in camps. At least 3/4ths of the online news magazines are making comparisons to the Nazis when they talk about us, because apparently wanting your existing laws enforced makes you literally Hitler. All the while, the media ignores the absolute spree of faked hate crimes being conducted by liberals all across this country, and hypocritically try to condemn us for "inflammatory rhetoric", when they have knowingly been inciting violence against us with their bullshit comparisons.
Spoken like a truly ignorant person. Not everyone in India who wants to stay in India is the rich. Stop trying to speak for "the vast majority of Indians" and just speak for yourself. Don't judge the OP for you have not been in his/her shoes. [SEP] >Not everyone in India who wants to stay in India is the rich.   He/she said OP "probably" is rich. While calling out his statement for generalizing, you did the same.  And his/her assumption is "probably" true as well since the OP moved to Canada when he was 9. I don't want to generalize again and say that OP wants to move here just because he's rich. But being rich definitely adds to the pros of moving to India(or any country for that matter).  >Spoken like a truly ignorant person.   You don't have to be condescending.
Yeah, not saying this is a bad choice - it's a good one! I think Meodcham is good option in addition.  [SEP] >Meodcham is good option  Is this the part where someone says something condescending about grammar?
Why would you open up your response by calling me "salty" - about what, planes? I already made my argument about AA being adequate, what would I be salty about? Every gamer likes to say "salty" these days, lmao  >Planes have the highest skill cap by far, so if you can dominate the map in an attack plane, you're a seriously good pilot. Trashing that skill by introducing a blatantly OP mechanic like the stationary AA ruins the fun of flying.  "The fun of flying" isn't necessarily a strategic point in a match. You're not capturing flags in a plane, your only contribution is killing. You have planes to kill tanks that can't even hit you unless you're stupidly low or slow. You have planes to kill entire masses of infantry (that can't even fight you back to any notable degree without an AA gun). And you can do all this at speeds faster than any land vehicle, terrain is of no consequence to you, and you can travel higher and farther than literally anything else in the game.   By all means, do what's fun for you, but it's not your opponents' responsibility to just let enemy pilots cruise around unmolested. A plane has freedom of interaction in a bubble vastly larger than infantry boundaries with which to conduct its attacks. If the threat you generate compells your enemy to mount one or several AA guns to fight you in its radius [that is still smaller than yours, as a pilot], I don't see how you find that to be out of line. We literally require at least two or three men to stand at an unprotected stationary gun that shoots giant tracers leading right back to our chests, ripe for snipers, vehicles, or any other infantry to easily pick us off just to help keep our team from getting attacked by one guy in a plane and maybe the one or two passengers he may have. You're in a plane specifically to attack them from crazy angles and speed off to distances and altitudes they can't respond to otherwise. They should be able to effectively shoot down your plane to prevent attacks. You drop giant tank-destroying bombs, and can carpet bomb multiple squads-worth of infantry with a barrel of grenades that you rain down upon them.   Anyways, regarding the emplacements around a map - I played a match today in which two destroyed stationary AA emplacements never respawned once they got destroyed. I dunno what that's about, but it surely benefits the pilot/team that effectively maneuvered on it, you agree?   Like literally every other aspect of Battlefield since the first of the series, if you're getting repeatedly shut down by something, it's time for you and your buddies to adapt your tactics to the immediate threat. DICE shouldn't have to nerf their map design because players fail to communicate with each other or take some squad initiative.   Yesterday on Sinai Desert CQ, planes were wrecking my squad and team. So my squad started manning AA guns and spawning in the AA truck to counter the threat. We did! Blew every last plane out of the sky. Then guess what happened? Those same enemy pilots spawned in their own light tanks, and chased down our AA Trucks, destroying them. Two Cavalrymen rode out to our stationary AA and slew the men manning them. So then my squad went AT Assault+Support, and began tank hunting those Light Tanks at G Flag. We got strafed (in awesome cinematic form) by a very skilled attack plane at G, followed by a couple Infantry squads that managed to cap both C and G, pretty severely limiting our counter-AA, and my buddies on the G flaks actually got sniped from their stationary AA by two really good marksmen all the way from the cliffs at B Flag!  It was one of the funnest matches I've had in BF1 because those pilots we were fighting just wouldn't take "No!" for an answer, and they met our initial counter with counters of their own, forcing us to get off our AA duties and adapt to them.   This is exactly what BF1 is about! Don't get complacent in your pilot seat, because like all the rest of us with boots on the ground, or an armored shell surrounding us, we're all just one persistent enemy away from being dethroned.  >Apparently your solution is to "take them out not in a plane", but a defense that can only be execute on a respawn is a shit defense.  Yeah, tell that to the infantry that respawned to grab AA because the enemy planes are railing their team! Dying means you got bested. Respawning means you have a chance to counter. I completely disagree with your outlook on that because DICE (and many other FPS) specifically provide a KillCam for you to do exactly that - maneuver on and counter that which previously killed you.  People should pride themselves at using intelligent strategy to win, not whine on the forums and beg the developers to nerf the thing that shuts them down in a game of assymetrical warfare just because they're a one trick pony. [SEP] > Why would you open up your response by calling me "salty"  Because you use lots of sarcasm and are really condescending. Your argument seems very emotional.
Elitists believe that with evasion +2/3 you should be evading through roars, so HGE shouldn't be needed. But honestly, I'd rather not be bothered. HGE is so handy. It's on most of my sets (except for my evade lance set, in which case I do just backhop through roars haha). [SEP] > Elitists believe  I really wish we would not throw this term around willy-nilly.  Jerks are jerks. Elitists are elitists. Being a jerk does not make you an elitist, and being elitist does not make you a jerk.  I wholly believe that HGE is really not all that important in MH4U, more so when Evasion+ skills can help with evading roars. If you like it, then so be it, but condescendingly brushing off people who believe that Evasion+# and HGE combos are weak makes you no better than the elitists you are brushing off.  Realistically, you should be evading through roars with Evasion+2/+3. Or at least try to.  The very act of condescendingly brushing someone off as an "elitist" is in itself an elitist gesture; you are inherently positioning yourself as better than a "so-called" elitist.
The comments on this article make me very sad. I've known Alyssa (Biscuits! Or Dr. Biscuits!) since ...idk, late June. She started to come out to New Game Plus prior to EVO and made quick friendships with everyone in the Boston scene. (That's because we're awesome and you should all come to visit but I digress.)   She joined our carpool from Boston to Vegas (with just a hint of spontaneity after we announced at a venue we need another person in the car) & from getting to know her more during that trip I can safely say that, yes, she is mad for Gravy but that's not at all the only reason she's stuck with the community.  She fits into the community in a great way and I think her take on her relationship in the context of the scene is interesting. Mentioning it as a political sort of thing seems to be relatively on point. I think, for community members, this article is easy to understand as we share some perspective with the author.  Sadly, many of the people who read this article seem to be interpreting it as her boasting, or describing herself as a groupie to her boyfriend. And on top of that, the "ick, gaming" comments are relatively toxic and remind me of the stereotypes and feedback I feared when I got into the community. (Subsequently, I did not tell people I was in the community for about 2 years after joining.)  I think the article is great and displays a unique perspective of a community member. It's a shame the comments section is so disparaging. [SEP] >The comments on this article make me very sad.   Lucky you, they just piss me off. Ignorant, arrogant condescending arseholes.  Never going anywhere near that website again.  The one idiot said:  >Sooooo just so I'm clear we're both talking about the game where Donkey Kong can beat up Pikachu, right?  A guy articulately points out why that's a silly comment:  >Any game will sound stupid when you reduce it to such simple terms.  >Isn't baseball just a bunch of guys swinging sticks and running in circles? Isn't football just a bunch of guys pushing each other around for a ball? Isn't hockey the game where you slap a plastic cookie around in ice skates?  And gets the reply:  >Sorry, but I would argue that "just swinging sticks" takes a lot more practice, skill and dedication than playing video games does. I know you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth as I see it  Well shit, you sure know what you're talking about.  It's irritating because I can spend a couple hours a week practising my drums, guitar, or tennis and people will say how great it is. Practise video games for 10 hours a day for years and earn money doing it, and people are still like "well that doesn't take practice, skill and dedication"... What the fuck do you know, lady?
The only good religion is the Catholic faith, established by Christ. The test of a good religion is veracity, not humor. Frivolity is not a virtue. Chesterton has many good works and contributions to Catholicism, this quote is not among them.   The other 5% is masonic attitude. Sarcasm is beneath a Catholic. Have you prayed the Rosary today?  [SEP] >Have you prayed the Rosary today?  Wow. That might be the most condescending comment I've seen here in awhile. 
It's only a 24-hour delay. I think you can still vote to your heart's content even if you can't see the current score.  I get that in certain posts it can help to see the scores, but if you're looking for advice/opinions, then come back 24 hours later and you'll see which opinions were most agreed upon. Besides, it gives people a full 24 hours to put their two cents in before OP makes a decision.  Honestly, a lot of subs hide the scores for a while, and I don't see any down side to it. Make your own opinion and upvote/downvote (according to reddiquette) without worrying whether or not it will be the popular decision.  I believe in you - you can form your own opinion, you don't need instant comment scores! :) [SEP] >I believe in you - you can form your own opinion  condescending much? You asked for feedback, then respond with that? This sub was doing just fine without you and your censorship. 
Bahahahaha. What type of "philosophical" scrutiny has organized religion held up against to where you can conclude it exists?  "I see no physical proof that a God exists, and all of the suffering in the world makes me think that a God that loves all of his children would let existence be so unjust shows that Biblical teachings do not manifest themselves in reality."  "YOU HEATHEN! WE ARE PERSECUTED! WE ARE THE OPPRESSED!"  And yet, somehow theses stories are used to push public policy. Is Watkins' "cult" insane? Probably. But at least it's not used to control the world.  My point is that neither one of them should have any respect, because they're not real until proven otherwise. [SEP] > "I see no physical proof that a God exists, and all of the suffering in the world makes me think that a God that loves all of his children would let existence be so unjust shows that Biblical teachings do not manifest themselves in reality."  Would a God that loves his children give them the free will to choose their own paths, even if that leads to suffering? Or would he make them his slaves with no free will who have no choice but to obey him? Either way, to any God, the temporary suffering on Earth would be of little concerned compared to eternal rewards.  > "QUIT HATING! WE ARE PERSECUTED! WE ARE THE OPPRESSED!"  You were the one who started this by complaining about getting downvoted for, not only injecting an unrelated and controversial religious belief into a thread on r/NFL, but also doing it in a needlessly condescending and dismissive way.  > And yet, somehow theses stories are used to push public policy. Is Watkins' "cult" insane? Probably. But at least it's not used to control the world.  If Christianity is controlling the world, it isn't doing a very good job at accomplishing any of its goals. Abortion is still legal basically everywhere that Christianity was the dominant faith. Hell, even in America, generally considered the preeminent example of Christianity dominating politics, a Christian business-owner can be sued out of business for declining to participate in a ceremony that his religion prohibits him from doing.  If you mean that the dominant nations of the world are largely culturally Christian, and therefore that worldview dominates their politics, well, yeah. Everyone has a worldview that informs their assumptions about many issues. This is true of all worldviews, not simply religious ones.  > My point is that neither one of them should have any respect, because they're not real until proven otherwise.  They either are real or they aren't, regardless of whether we have definitive proof. Gravity was always real, even before Newton figured it out. People weren't floating away randomly before the Enlightenment.
You are really being unfair by implying that I am just showing off my intelligence rather than answering your question. The answer I gave really is the answer to your question about whether there would be a Law of Bounciness in a universe in which balls bounce off each other, or in a universe in which balls do not bounce off each other. I thought that you might find it interesting. If you would prefer a simplified answer, it is that no, there is no Law of Bounciness.   However you did ask another question so I will answer that one too. Yes, you are using the word emergent incorrectly.  It is often noted that intelligence is an emergent property of the brain. What is meant by this is that if you examine a single nerve cell, you cannot detect any intelligence. You cannot say that because one nerve cell has a certain amount of intelligence, you can therefore add up all the intelligence of all the nerve cells in order to arrive at human intelligence. It takes all the brain cells working together to produce the phenomenon of human intelligence.   In comparison, mass is not an emergent property of the human brain (or of any object that has mass), it is a non-emergent property, or as we might call it, a normal property. The mass of the whole brain is the total of the mass of all the cells. So simply by knowing the average mass of a single cell, and the total number of cells, you can figure out the mass of the brain.  For people who have difficulty understanding how this concept applies to the brain, I sometimes give an additional example of a book. The information content of a book is also an emergent property. You will find out what a book has to tell you only by reading the whole book. The smaller the pieces into which you break it down, the less information you get. Reading a book would still work one page at a time, especially if the pages are read in sequence; in fact, that's how books are normally read, one page at a time. You can also read them one sentence at a time, as long as you do so in sequence. But suppose I give you just one word from a book. The book, let us say, contains a hundred thousand words. Does one word therefore contain one hundred thousandth of the information of the book? Not really. One word tells you nothing, or virtually nothing (depending upon how unusual the word is; almost every book contains the word "the" but relatively few contain the word "endoplasmic" for example, so if you knew that a book contained that word you might reasonably infer that the book has something to do with cellular biology - although it might not, just as my comment contains that word but is not actually about cellular biology, and instead is about the meaning of the word emergent). If we take the next step, and look at a single letter taken from the book, it can tell you nothing about the book. At that point the useful information content becomes zero. The letters only have meaning when they are assembled into words which are assembled into sentences, and the full meaning of those sentences only emerges if those sentences are then read in their intended sequence.   We can also take the disassembly of a book even further if we want to, because a letter printed in a book is composed of ink, and the ink is composed if ink molecules. If you examine an individual ink molecule, it can tell you absolutely nothing about the information content of a book. (And molecules are composed of atoms, and atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles, which is about as far as we can go in disassembling a book or any physical object.)   I do not see, therefore, that the laws of nature would be an emergent property of existing objects, because all laws of nature operate in the same way on all parts of objects, large or small. You do not need an entire object, such as a brain or a book, before you can observe the operation of the laws of nature.   As for the role of the laws of nature in the creation of the Big Bang from virtual particles, that is explained in detail in the book "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. I would recommend the book to you, but I am not sure that you would like it, since it contains even more complicated explanations than mine, and you already think that I am just trying to show off my intelligence.   I have taken the time to answer your question in great detail but I am not sure that you will find it satisfying (although I hope that you do). At this point I am beginning to suspect that this discussion is not leading anywhere, so perhaps we should let it go. [SEP] > You are really being unfair by implying that I am just showing off my intelligence rather than answering your question.  I disagree. I think it's pretty fair to take your exposition as a condescending tangent. Let's review:  - First, you write off the analogy as-presented by presuming that it fallaciously attributes a singular nature to a set of laws. In other words, you fundamentally change the premise of the analogy.  - From there, you elaborate on the multiplicity of laws that your ( version of the ) analogy entails, while presuming ignorance of the subject matter on my part. I say "presuming", because my analogy does not suggest, for instance, that I am ignorant of Coulomb's Law... or... elasticity.  - Then, you pretend as if I had asked you to explain to me why the balls might pass through one another, concluding under this context, that "lots of things are possible".  Even if I had no reading comprehension and didn't understand that "lots of things are possible" was an answer to the question "why might the balls pass through one another" ( that I didn't ask ), it still would not be tantamount to saying "there is no Law of Bounciness".  And I didn't ask you if I was using "emergent" incorrectly.  > I do not see, therefore, that the laws of nature would be an emergent property of existing objects, because all laws of nature operate in the same way on all parts of objects, large or small. You do not need an entire object, such as a brain or a book, before you can observe the operation of the laws of nature.  To observe Coulomb's Law, you must have an entire system, which in this case, is two electrically charged particles. If you do not have this entire system, there is no observable difference between Coulomb's Law and the absence of Coulomb's Law.  If electrically charged particles do not exist, they cannot interact, and the phenomenon of Coulomb's Law, likewise, does not exist. The phenomena is clearly emergent, as it arises as a function distinct from one any one of its necessary variables.  The premise that "[ a law ] of nature operate[s]" presumes that its respective function has been expressed fully enough to constitute an operating law. That Coulomb's Law operates consistently with regard to any pair of charged particles, specifically across large objects and small that are made of such particles, is completely beside the issue of its emergence. [ edit ] It's like saying a snow flake isn't emergent because you can form one around a dust particle in both a petri dish or an open sky.
I'm not sure I see the contradiction. Watson had an uncomfortable social interaction. It's too bad that that happened, but it's a strange thing to get worked up about. Watson did get worked up about it, and Dawkins mocked her by comparing her minor problem with the much larger problems facing women in much of the Muslim world.  I'm not really concerned with correcting anyone, just with defending Dawkins, who generally seems like a good guy, from accusations of being some awful sexist troll based on the above. [SEP] > It's too bad that that happened, but it's a strange thing to get worked up about.  This condescending, patronizing attitude is exemplary of the sexism exhibited by Dawkins in this scenario. The idea that you and Dawkins know better than women what the lived experience of women is like, what the correct response to a situation is, and that they need to be corrected because the issues important to them are "minor problems" (a distinction you feel justified in making despite your complete disassociation from the events) is just absurd and paternalistic. 
I'm not inordinately fixated on Islam, we are debating the role of religion in terrorism (in the context of a terror attack by Islamic militants), and I'm expressing my opinion. Just because someone doesn't agree with everything you say, doesn't mean they don't understand your argument; nothing like a little misplaced condescension to sour a perfectly good discussion. [SEP] If your opinion is that the role of militant Islam in terrorism is as a proximate cause that is itself created by far more important distal causes and their contexts, then we are both in agreement.  >nothing like a little misplaced condescension to sour a perfectly good discussion.  I don't feel like I was being condescending. I'm sorry if I came off like that.
I used to play tr4sh, but once I ascended to a higher level than casual-ness, I got really frustrated by the terrible balance and shitty slow-paced gameplay.  AND THEN PM HAPPENED  But you are only interested in being toxic as fuck and downvoting me. [SEP] Maybe just take a second to see why people might consider the things you're saying as toxic.  > tr4sh  This in and of itself is derogatory and appears to be incredibly judgmental of Smash 4.  > but once I ascended to a higher level  This rings of elitism, and insinuates that anybody who plays Smash 4 is a casual below your level. It is condescending.   > I hate the game, not the players.  Then take a moment to consider how what you're saying could easily be taken as a criticism towards the players. You're saying it's a game for casuals, you stopped when you 'ascended to a higher level' - those kinds of things are directed towards the people who play Smash 4.  I simply ask that you consider how your attitude is not helping anybody, on either the PM or Smash 4 side of things. 
Your view on humanity is sad to say the least what do you think we’re capable of? You probably think humanity’s destined for death cause what would happen if humanity lived another 1000 years we’d probably be immortal able to withstand the universes harshest conditions to be able to change ourselves and the matter around ourselves anything’s possible with time why can’t gods be born out of species so ascended that they’ve lived millions if not billions of years old the universe is supposedly around 15 billion years old imagine beings that lived in the first billion years being alive today what would they be? They’d be gods each one of them possibly a civilization of gods as powerful or more powerful than the current idea of our lord above everything that’s 1000% possible your view points are so factual and robotic in logic your either atheist or agnostic you need to learn more about the world the more too it than call of duty, trump, war in the Middle East, and North Korea, there’s a lot more there’s a universe of goodness out there if your willing to except the grandness of the universe and reality let go of your ego and realize how infinitely small you and all of us are, you’re but a cell in the cosmos of gods body you live Day to Day doing your defined functions but you could be more than that you can evolve if that wasn’t true we’d be no more than bacteria on a uninhabitable earth  [SEP] I'm not sure how you imagine this POV. It is not mine that's for sure. I am simply speaking of accountability of man for his actions. I don't think the human intellect is capable of making any meaningful statements about ultimate reality anymore than my cat drinking milk in the kitchen can solve 5 long division problems in 2 minutes. I don't buy the media propaganda that provokes limited and useless two party bickering.   The future is uncertain - always uncertain. We could live another 1000 years but to think we will be able to live forever is speculation pure and simple. There could be a super bug that mutates and that could be our focus over a 500 year period. Lifespan may regress for all we know.   >You probably think  How condescending and wrong. It would serve you better to ask. You are simply setting up straw men and bashing them over. 
It might do you some good to read this. I'll just copy-paste some parts to form a take-away message, but I recommend the reading; As a guy, it's what made me get on board with ironic misandry:  > NO, NONE OF US LITERALLY WANT TO KILL ALL MEN.  (...)  > Here’s what we do want to kill: the concept of masculinity. And you should want that, too.  (...)  > Here’s something you might not know, but I feel the rest of the coven won’t mind my spilling the beans: Every time, literally EVERY TIME we daydream privately about life after you leave for the Island, one of your girlfriends or wives or fiancées asks for a day pass or an exemption. I’d like one for my dad, too, and I bet I’m not the only one. Feminists love individual men ferociously. [SEP] >Here’s what we do want to kill: the concept of masculinity. And you should want that, too.  That's disgusting. The fact that you think that this is acceptable or that everyone should want to do this shows how out of touch you are. You don't want all men to die, you just want to destroy what it is to be a man at a fundamental level.   That entire article was condescending hate speech.   Seriously, what would your reaction be to "we don't want all women to die, we just want to kill any concept of femininity"? Do you think that's okay? Do you think that's a worthy goal or respectful of free choice, individuality etc? How would you feel about a men's movement that wanted to put all women on an island but just didn't because of a lack of resources?   This is like the rantings of any hate movement and you should absolutely be ashamed of yourself. I think it's even more sad because you're a male and you're willing to accept the idea that masculinity needs to be destroyed for the benefit of women. 
1. This logic is flawed and does not work. It's like asking yourself would you sell your car now, when it costs $48 thousand and you used it 1 year or would you sell your car for $32 thousand and you used it for 2 years. A very limited car. So don't use this one cause its a dumb argument that has absolutely no hold. The Brooklyn Nets were willing to take contract worth $48 million this year. The end.  2. Again, wrong. You took my argument and you turned it the way you wanted to hear it. This deal does make us better than it was a month ago and will make us better in the future. Cap wise. Player wise. Moral wise. Cultural wise. You name it. And yes, this absolutely means that the LA Lakers have more chance to acquire a superstar in 2018 than they had a month prior to this trade by simple math. But do use this one again to spin the argument in your favor. Peace. [SEP] > This logic is flawed and does not work. It's like asking yourself would you sell your car now, when it costs $48 thousand and you used it 1 year or would you sell your car for $32 thousand and you used it for 2 years. A very limited car. So don't use this one cause its a dumb argument that has absolutely no hold. The Brooklyn Nets were willing to take contract worth $48 million this year. The end.  This implies anyone is valuing Mozgov as an asset. They are not. He is only a liability that they must pay. The assumption both today and next year is that he will not provide on-court value. Anything that can be gleaned is a bonus. To continue your car example, you have a 3 year lease on your car and you total it. You are trying to get someone to take the lease off your hands in exchange for being able to scrap the vehicle for parts. Are they more likely/willing to take it with 3 years left on the lease or 2 years left on the lease?  The deal only makes them better player wise for 2017-2018, but they aren't going to win anything in 17-18 so what is the value of improving the roster in 17/18?  >And yes, this absolutely means that the LA Lakers have more chance to acquire a superstar in 2018   No, it means they have more of a chance to acquire TWO superstars. There were avenues to get max space for one guy without this deal. You're also, again, presuming that a similar deal could not have been accomplished next year, when the liability of the Mozgov contract is less.  Any reason to be so condescending to someone who is just talking ball on a message board to pass the time?
It’s actually not hypocritical when you come off as an asshat that seems to not know much about the game, but okay, sure man.    I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with you over accounts. You wouldn’t win and I would not look good.    Nobody plays deadman, dude. Let’s be real, it’s dead content that 97% of us want completely gone. That has absolutely nothing to do with an increase in players and you know it.   Sure, if you just looked at the numbers - you’d be correct. But I doubt the returning players posting on reddit excited for mobile are coming back for deadman - is that fair to say? People are excited for mobile, so people are returning to play beforehand. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp for you but mobile IS bringing players into the game as we speak.    [SEP] >when you come off as an asshat  Let's take a look at how you've been writing to me. You called me buckaroo, you told me to "do a little research before jumping the gun", you described what I wrote as "laughable", you wrote "It’s clear you don’t know much about OSRS", you wrote "the proof is pretty obvious to the rest of us that can see clearly" which implies that I can't see clearly, and you humblebrag about your account: "You wouldn’t win and I would not look good". All of that is part of a condescending tone, and now you write that I'm the one who's coming off as an asshat?  >I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with you over accounts. You wouldn’t win and I would not look good.  /r/humblebrag   >it’s dead content that 97% of us want completely gone  Even though not many people play Deadman other than for the first week, it's popular streamer content and to say that 97% want it gone is plain ignorant.  >People are excited for mobile  True.  >so people are returning to play beforehand  Not really. I even did a search on /r/2007scape and could only find one guy claiming to have made a new account because of mobile.
Yes, they are already making massive cuts to the EPA, proposed budget would gut funding for science.   And yes, people are denouncing science. E.g. alternative facts. Science is not about nature, it's about careful observation that gets at facts, and the current US adminstration is against that.  You didn't understand why women were marching after we elected a puusy-grabber for president? You haven't heard about all the attacks on women's health care, and Planned Parenthood specifically?   Congratulations on waking from that coma, presumably.   And yes, to religion is overtaking science, that's why Betsy Devos is head of the department of education. [SEP] > You didn't understand why women were marching after we elected a puusy-grabber for president? You haven't heard about all the attacks on women's health care, and Planned Parenthood specifically?  We also elected a black (muslim) for president, but the KKK didn't march down DC. If you're holding a large demonstration, your message should be clear and well understood. Not just some sort of vague overall demonstration.  And when people ask about it, giving them attitude is a poor way to gain support. People just want to be informed; Being condescending isn't helping anyone.
No study has been done proving this as far as im aware, i am relying on this little thing called logic, open borders leads to more travel which leads to people with diseases spreading those diseases everywhere they go [SEP] >i am relying on this little thing called logic  Very, very condescending.  Logic must be supported with evidence, in this world. And, proposing a chain of consequence like you did (open borders-more travel-more spread of disease) only offers one possible outcome, without examining other options. I can make statements without evidence using "logic" too: Open borders means more people who are inclines towards science and medicine can get to countries with good schools, and therefore the increase in medical advancements will offset any spread of disease that would normally happen.   Or, just suggest that open immigration is good for the world economy and thus the quality of life of everyone in general will improve (likely leading to more sanitary conditions for many people of the world). 
> What makes you think they have a hard time comparing products/services in those industries? An iPhone is far more complicated then a splint or a school lesson plan. Why are people able to make decisions on the former but not the latter two?  An iPhone's quality is astronomically less important than healthcare or a the quality of a school. And you can purchase a phone, for example, anywhere and take it home. Schools and Medical Facilities would likely be chosen on location rather than quality, which I fail to understand how consumers can compare and contrast in a free market (assuming there was a true free market of those services).  If you take your kid to School A for 1 year, it's not like a Netflix Subscription where you can cancel and try HBO or Amazon Prime next month. It's not even like apartment hunting where you rent at a place for a year and decide to look around for a new one and move down the street to a nicer complex.  The quality of the school would be one of MANY factors. It won't be as easy as "Oh hey babe, this school is better 3 towns over so I am going to send you there instead next year." How is the child going to get to the school? Will you want to pull the child away from friends? Will you want to start new relationships with new teachers for a child with special needs?  You can buy 1 of 1000 phones made in factories in any country on earth and, theoretically the quality of the phone itself is the #1 factor by far. There isn't anything nearly as important to consider. Same with almost any other consumer product. Public services like Education and Healthcare are not something you can take with you and just focus on the features or the reviews on Yelp/Amazon.  >And why are they regional monopolies? Because governments grant those monopolies. You're not getting competition in telecommunications because governments won't allow competition. That's not an example of a monopoly forming out of a free unfettered market.  You think an unfettered market is going to break those monopolies? The reason many of those companies exist is because AT&T controlled communications and had to be broken up to create a free market in that industry. They will do whatever it takes to keep control over the market and because it's so expensive to provide those services, no other company will be able to compete. That's not the governments fault.  AT&T broke up into 8 companies and merged back into 3 since. That's how those industries are. Fox and Disney are merging. Not because of government. Because monopolies are natural but also hurt competition and thus quality.  You think schools or healthcare is not going to turn into a monopoly without government regulation? Schools aren't going to be mom and pop operations. It would be big business. So teachers can jump from location to location, as needed, like bistros at Starbucks. Unprofitable schools will get shut down and kids will get split up into neighboring schools. Once 1-3 companies get control of the marketplace, nobody is going to be able to jump into a market with a new school. Schools aren't places people try out like a restaurant or a new clothing store and you'll know from 1 visit if it sucks. You could be sending your kid to a crap school for years and never know unless it was insanely worse than everything else.  A good article: Popularity vs Quality  Another good article: Perception Isn't Always Half the Battle; Sometimes It's the Entire Battle  >Both of those are government granted monopolies.  I disagree cause I think those monopolies are natural and are likely to happen anyways but with that being said, you want government created monopolies gone? Reverse Citizens United. But you won't because of "freedom". Even if that "freedom" for the rich and powerful is screwing with the free market that conservatives claim to care about.  Sorry if I didn't address all your points but I ran out of time. [SEP] > Schools and Medical Facilities would likely be chosen on location rather than quality  That's simply not true. People look for the best schools and great medical facilities and base where they live on that all the time.   >The quality of the school would be one of MANY factors. It won't be as easy as "Oh hey babe, this school is better 3 towns over so I am going to send you there instead next year." How is the child going to get to the school? Will you want to pull the child away from friends? Will you want to start new relationships with new teachers for a child with special needs?  This happens all the time. Usually it happens before the child is even born. Despite your insinuations people make long term decisions all the time. It's gotten harder because the federal government has worsened schools across the board but before that when school districts were far more autonomous, people would look for great schools and move there to take advantage of it.   You still have not demonstrated that people have a hard time comparing these services. People do it right now all the time. And that's with government heavily restricting their ability to do so.   >The reason many of those companies exist is because AT&T controlled communications and had to be broken up to create a free market in that industry.  AT&T was also a government created monopoly. Why can't you find an example of a monopoly forming without the government? Could it be that you are wrong that they would form without the government?   >They will do whatever it takes to keep control over the market  Sure. But in a free market the only way they can do so is by offering better/cheaper services/products then everybody else. Holding onto to large market share in a free market is extremely difficult.   >it's so expensive to provide those services, no other company will be able to compete.  Simply not true. Companies are trying to compete. Governments are getting in the way.   >Fox and Disney are merging.  So? That still won't constitute a monopoly. They won't be able to pump out movies that people hate. In fact the incentive for Disney will be to keep the quality up to pay for the financing of all these acquisitions.   >You think schools or healthcare is not going to turn into a monopoly without government regulation?   Schools and healthcare are monopolies right now! Why is a government monopoly somehow better?   And no I don't think monopolies that can set the market price without consequence will form in a free market. You have yet to show an example of that happening.   >A good article: Popularity vs Quality  >Another good article: Perception Isn't Always Half the Battle; Sometimes It's the Entire Battle  Is this about EA? I trust consumer decisions over some article. If consumers value "quality" less then you, why do you care? Find the higher quality EA. This happens all the time. Some people like third wave coffee. Most are fine with Starbucks. To condescend and say all the Starbucks customers are wrong is stupid and authoritarian minded.   >I disagree cause I think those monopolies are natural  You're wrong. Localities pass legislation that specifically restrict telecommunications competition.   >want government created monopolies gone? Reverse Citizens United.  How does that have anything to do with government created monopolies?   >Sorry if I didn't address all your points but I ran out of time.  Well when you find the time, go back and address them. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion if you're going to ignore my points. Please don't reply if you're not going to address everything. 
Careful...resort to condescension is usually a telling sign that you've nothing else to argue with. As they say, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, pound the table.  > Why do you ignore the crucial fact that they reported things occurring during periods of time when we know that they were flat-lined, that's also been verified?  I haven't ignored anything. As indicated, I grant you that it would be a strong piece of evidence in favor of your position if someone could actually produce reliable data indicating that a person was able to relate information they could only have acquired at a time when they had no brain activity.   I'm disputing that the methodology employed by the studies you cite is capable of producing sufficiently reliable results to justify your quoted statement. You can repeat that such-and-so has been "verified" or "refuted" all you want. It won't make it true.   I realize my criticisms aren't new, and I realize that you and other proponents of substance dualism disagree with me. But you seem to be confusing disagreement with refutation. You saying that I'm wrong isn't a refutation. I fully realize that the methodological flaws in NDE studies have been pointed out by others. I'll stop pointing them out as soon as you stop arguing that methodologically inadequate studies disprove materialism.  > And yet you haven't read them.  I readily admit that I haven't read every NDE study ever conducted, or even an appreciable portion of them. That's why I asked you for examples of studies that provide the data you would need to support your position. In response, you pointed to studies with systemic methodological flaws that invalidate the researchers' conclusions. Am I wrong to assume you led with your strongest evidence?  > I'm not saying A or B when it comes to the physics part, as Carter argues extensively that nothing in the survivalist interpretation of the data clashes with anything in physics.  Whether it does or doesn't depends on your position on substance dualism. If materialism is true, QFT conclusively rules out the persistence of consciousness beyond death. This cannot be disputed without concurrently disputing the truth of QFT itself, and QFT is the most well-confirmed theory in the history of science. That's why you need to start by refuting materialism.  Last time I pointed this out, you went back to the NDE studies and we ended up returning full circle to the methodological problems that undermine the study findings.  > numerous actual Quantum Physicists have gone on the record to state that nothing in QM forbids the survivalist interpretation  I agree, it doesn't. QM doesn't strictly tell us anything about whether materialism is true or false. What it does tell us is that consciousness cannot persist beyond death unless materialism is false.  > We're talking about the act of having a deep NDE and what that does to a person. And in THAT context, if you were to have a deep NDE yourself, you would change your mind. You wouldn't even care what the research said, you would know through personal experience that the afterlife was ultra-real. That, my friend, is a fact, a fact that is just not up for debate in light of the data.  I got the distinction. The issue isn't that I don't understand what you're saying. The issue is that what you're saying is false.  Think about Russell Crowe's portrayal of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind. He comes to know he's schizophrenic, and that he sees people who aren't actually there. He then bears this fact in mind whenever he meets a new person, and he makes efforts to verify whether or not they're likely to be real before he accepts that they are.  In the exact same way, having an NDE myself would not dramatically change my position about the state of the evidence. It would certainly pique my interest in the subject, but that's about all it would immediately do. I know that my anecdotal data is not any more significant, in objective terms, than anyone else's anecdotal data. If anything, the person experiencing the NDE is in a worse position than the outside researchers to say what their physical brain was or wasn't doing at the time the experience occurred. I'm not going to suddenly forget all that just because it's me having the NDE.   The only real significance that would attach to me having the experience myself, as opposed to hearing a description of someone else's experience, is that I would know I wasn't intentionally lying about the content of the experience. The actual evidentiary value of the experience would still be quite low.  In much the same way, if a being matching the classical mythic description of Zeus were to suddenly appear before me and shoot lightning from his fingers, I'd weigh the probability that Zeus actually exists and has appeared before me against the probability that I'm hallucinating, and conclude that I'm most likely hallucinating. We are notoriously unreliable judges of what our own experiences mean, and you don't seem to be acknowledging the possibility that someone can have a powerful subjective experience without forgetting this fact.  This is what I was getting at with my comment about Bayesian reasoning. If you aren't familiar with it, Thomas Bayes constructed a mathematical equation to describe how evidence affects the probability of propositions in light of other available information. All correct reasoning about probability proceeds along Bayesian lines.  What I or anyone else should do, upon having an NDE, is apply his equation to determine what impact the fact of the experience has upon the consequent probability that consciousness persists beyond the cessation of brain activity. As it turns out, the impact is negligible.  > It is possible that I'm convinced by the data, and not by my desire for it to be true. Ever entertained that possibility?  I have. So far, the evidence doesn't support it. You're being overly charitable to the purported evidence that supports your position and ignoring alternate explanations of the data that jive much better with the totality of other information we have.  > But you are not familiar with the evidence! So this statement is completely ridiculous and you are simply lying for the sake of trying to win the argument here, instead of actually pursuing the truth of the matter. It's quite embarrassing.  You're taking an overly narrow view of what's at issue and it's causing you to miss my point. The relevant evidence isn't just what the NDE studies say. I'm looking at the totality of all scientific evidence ever acquired by anyone, and concluding that it militates strongly in favor of accepting materialism. Based on that, I conclude that materialism is most likely true. It then follows uneventfully that consciousness cannot persist beyond death, because QFT tells us that such a phenomenon would be impossible in a world where materialism is true.  I readily admit to being ignorant to the majority of work that has been done in the field of NDE studies. That's why I asked you to point to a few. The examples you gave admit of methodological flaws that invalidate their results as support for any argument against the truth of materialism. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in relying on the person who contends I should change my mind about materialism to provide me with evidence that indicates I should change my mind about materialism.  > If only it was a possible interpretation and not a forced one!  Fundamentally, this is what the entire disagreement is about. You're arguing that there is no possible way to account for the reported results of NDE studies without rejecting materialism. I just don't think that's true. [SEP] I tried to shorten this response, but even though I cut out huge chunks of where I'm citing you it's still too much so I'm making two posts. This is the first one of two (1/2).  >resort to condescension is usually a telling sign that you've nothing else to argue with.  I agree, but where and how were I condescending? As far as I can tell I was just stating facts throughout.  >I'm disputing that...  >In response...  You are making that statement, but you aren't elaborating on it, which is why I see it as an empty claim, at least so far. What is wrong with the AWARE study? What is wrong with the van Lommel study? What is wrong with the Pam Reynolds case? What is wrong with Michael Sabom's findings? What are the relevant methodological shortcomings? You are saying that I'm lacking in my argument by not providing a refutation, but the problem is that there's nothing to refute yet, because you haven't argued this case to begin with. As you yourself so eloquently pointed out, merely making a claim doesn't prove it to be true or substantiated.  >I realize my criticisms aren't new...  It need perhaps be stated that my EQ is quite low, for this isn't meant to "condescend" you but merely state what I see as an straightforward interpretation of the way you put forward your stance: It's obvious that you don't have a lot of philosophical training, because a philosopher would not just assume that "Not materialism, therefore substance dualism." Substance dualism means that there are two different fundamental components of all reality, but that is not a forced interpretation of the NDE message - I am a substance monist, in that it's quite clear to me that we're all one consciousness/spirit/qualia/<insert terminology of choice here> if we take the cumulative NDE message at face value. In this view of reality, there isn't really any matter or energy, there are just thoughts inside our own minds, and what we see as a systematic reality here that "seems" external is just a shared dream, a structured thought that we knowingly agreed to participate in and be fooled by. Matter, time, space etc aren't actually "out there" but rather just concepts and thoughts in our own minds. We project this reality, rather than the materialistic belief that it is what creates us.  >Am I wrong to assume you led with your strongest evidence?  Yes and no. The AWARE study and the van Lommel study for instance are two of the most comprehensive prospective studies in the field, but the reason I reference them primarily in discussions of this kind is because they're easily available by URLs. I would much prefer to shove Carter's book down everyone's throat with a bibliography of more than 14 pages referencing study after study, but that's not feasible when the other participants in the discussion is eager to arrive at conclusions quickly (if at all). In an ideal world my response to things like this would be "Hey, there's this plethora of relevant evidence pointing to the fact of an afterlife, but it takes some time to familiarize yourself with all the arguments and all the evidence. But it's totally worth spending weeks or months of your time on, since it's the most important question of all time that can finally be settled by empirical evidence rather than philosophical guessing."  But we don't like in such a slow-paced world. It's like when someone asks for a single study that proves that evolution is true and takes all possible counter-arguments into account. Can you provide something like that, that is online, freely available and also easily digestible?  >I agree, it doesn't...  But isn't that an extremely trivial fact? It's like saying "Materialism cannot be false unless it is false!" Maybe I've misunderstood you here and if so please correct me and/or elaborate on what I've misunderstood, but it seems to me that your entire reason for evoking QFT in the first hand is completely irrelevant in light of what you've just said here.  >In the exact same way, having an NDE myself would not dramatically change my position about the state of the evidence.  And I didn't say that it would. This is the second or third time you've misunderstood my argument completely. I will try to explain it a lot more carefully this time.  If you have a deep NDE yourself, you will not care about the state of the evidence at large. When you come back, you will not care about how strict the methodology of the AWARE study may or may not have been employed. You will not care about X or Y or Z when it comes to the science of NDEs, and it won't matter to you whether your brain was flat-lined or not during the experience.  Do you know what 'phenomenology' is? If not, research it. The phenomenology of the NDE itself will convince you of its reality. I've already given you links that elaborate on this but it's clear that you completely ignored them, so I will describe it here instead.  What is the reason that you think this world exists right here and now? When you cut through all the bullshit social indoctrination and cultural filters, what makes you think that you exist here and now? Is it really because you've read in a paper somewhere that "There's a lot of peer-reviewed studies that confirm that this world does indeed exist!"? Of course not. You have a conscious experience of this world and of yourself, and it's the most real experience you've ever had. It's a lot more real and consistent than your dreams at night, and you notice that it's a clear phenomenological difference between dreams and waking life. Life presents itself as clearer, more real and more consistent than your dreams at night, and that's why you think that waking life is more primary.  The very same exact thing happens during an NDE, but in reverse, if you will. You wake up to a more real, consistent and wonderful reality than this one. And you will justifiably know this by virtue of the phenomenology of the experience itself. Just like you know that waking life now is more real than your dreams at night due to the phenomenological differences between them, you will know that the NDE world is a lot more real than waking life due to the phenomenological differences between them.  In other words, you will think that the NDE world is primary over this one for the same reason that you think this one is primary over your dreams. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever, except in terms of degrees - NDErs are more certain of an afterlife than you are certain of the reality of this world, by far. It's described often as "ultrareal", "indescribably vivid and tangible", "like waking up from a deep, deep dream", "millions or billions of times more real than this reality" and "that was the real world over there, you know, that was really home".  This is how everyone has reacted. Everyone. They understand the reason for your skepticism - you simply haven't had this kind of experience, and they grant that they were skeptical for the very same reason before they had it too. But after having it, there's no possible way of denying the reality of the experience. It's as absurd to them as denying for you that you're alive and aware right now. They are more sure that they were there and that that place exists, than they and we are sure that this world is real.  And since everyone who has had a deep NDE has reacted this way, it's quite safe to assume that you, me and Richard Dawkins would react the very same way too. To say otherwise is to deny the data! And by data here in this context I don't mean things like the AWARE study which you seem to be continuously misinterpreting it as, I am referencing the data which clearly state that this is how everyone reacts after having had a deep NDE. That's the distinction you don't seem to get.
Yes. I completely respect if someone is swayed out of the church by the CES letter, but to then think that I must draw the same conclusion or I am an idiot, ignorant, [insert typical exmormon reason here] is pure hubris. [SEP] >I completely respect if someone is swayed out of the church by the CES letter...  Swayed out? That doesn't sound like you respect their conclusions. That sounds judgmental and condescending.   Also, could you please stop referring to "the church" when you mean the lds church? That is not appropriate when speaking to a group of people where you know that at least some are not members of your religion.
Repeat after me: Anonymous is not a group, collective or anything of that sort. It is the antithesis of those things, why do people find that so hard to get? [SEP] >why do people find that so hard to get?  Sure, some people aren't familiar with the structure — or lack thereof, of Anonymous. But that doesn't mean it's "hard to get", and requires this kind of condescending clarification.  Why are criticisms of Anonymous so often rebutted with a sigh, and a definition of Anonymous? It also doesn't follow from the impermanent nature of Anonymous that criticism of it is incoherent. With Anonymous being defined as those who are in this instance acting under the self-described banner of "Anonymous", criticisms of those "members" are coherent.   As well, criticisms may generalize across those transient members. For instance, I think I can make the case that members of Anonymous use excessively grandiloquent and braggadocious language, and should put the Thesaurus down.
It wasn't like Darkscape ever had a huge player base. Obviously we expect release day (ish) to have the biggest counts for something which was mostly only knowledge privy to those already playing a Runescape game, and we also expect a good portion of them to not devote as much time to it in the future because they have progress on their other games which probably means more to them.   I know you don't like Darkscape's 'purpose', and that doesn't matter, because there are a lot of people that did, and a lot of people that could; risky PvP MMOs aren't games which struggle for player-base particularly. What I'm saying is entirely wrong is your reasoning for the game's lack of success. We do not think Darkscape was perfect, but again, that is Jagex's fault for doing fuck all to fix it over quite a long period of time. What we are saying is that the potential, and the premise, of the game was very promising, and it was the little (and large) details which were royally screwed up which held the game back, because without guidance it could be very difficult for a new player to get to grips with things or have faith in the development of the game. It felt like a beta, or even an alpha game. Advertising SHOULD have happened because it should have been apparent Darkscape had potential to attract people who are no longer, or never have been, interested in investing time into the other Runescape games. There was a dedicated community, and many higher levels willing to help and protect the lower levels; the player base had everything it needed to make sure numbers didn't drop much further even if things continued to be horrendously run.   And no, of course it isn't 'difficult to see why it is being closed down', the problem is that most of us believe that the negligence and half-arsed work ethic Jagex directed towards the game is what actually caused the game to get to a stage where closing it down seems like the best (easiest) idea.  The changes needed to improve the game significantly, or at least make it look professional and stable, would have required so little work in the grand scheme of things, and it DOES show how stingy Jagex are with their resource management, and having experienced some Runescape private servers it really does make me angry how little they seem to care about a player base, and potential player base, of numbers not exactly totally insignificant to them (2k subs maybe, and this is even with them doing a piss-poor job of the game).   Every problem with Darkscape has been caused by mismanagement on their behalf. Failing to reprimand bug abusers. Failing to set out clear long-term goals. Failing to engage with the player base when things got rough. Failing to fix simple things to tidy the game up a bit. And last, but not least, failing completely to show any genuine remorse or admittance to failure on their behalf, they have given us constrained apologies filled with exclamations of inadequate compensation which do little for me other than realise how much more they are worried about saving face rather than actually aiding their distressed customers. This has been incompetence from start to finish and the few positive points only managed to keep the game afloat for so long before the mismanagement caught up to it.   Once again, the premise, the idea, is fantastic, and that is why the game was kept alive for a while. The execution was less than good enough, and that is why the game died. [SEP] > Obviously we expect release day (ish) to have the biggest counts for something which was mostly only knowledge privy to those already playing a Runescape game  And for a game to be successful, it is to be expected the player base doesn't continue to drop after having a pretty successful start for what it was. Even if we go by the premise that it wasn't advertised enough to succeed, even if we go by relative success to the amount of players who tried the game to who stayed, it isn't that impressive. Again, just because some people enjoy the game, doesn't mean that it is a great. Was it fun and exciting and motivated you to finally get back into RuneScape? Possibly, but that doesn't mean it'll do it for the majority.  > Advertising SHOULD have happened because it should have been apparent Darkscape had potential to attract people who are no longer, or never have been, interested in investing time into the other Runescape games.  You'd be amazing a pretty small demographic here. You'd pretty much cut out PvMers, since PvP is the main focal point of the game, then add that you have to be a pretty hardcore PvPer to fully enjoy it, then, to get more items into the game, you'd need to either:  1) Encourage PvPers to PvM in some way  2) Wait for PvMers to join the game for whatever reason even though it is centered around PvP.  > the problem is that most of us believe that the negligence and half-arsed work ethic Jagex directed towards the game is what actually caused the game to get to a stage where closing it down seems like the best (easiest) idea  If the game can't maintain itself in the current state, why should a company throw more money into it when it's proving to be a bad idea because of the constant decline in player base?  > and having experienced some Runescape private servers it really does make me angry how little they seem to care about a player base  Private servers =/= professional. Private servers have the luxury of not needing to code a GAME. They just add their little own spice to it. It'd be like comparing a 4-5 star restaurant with McDonalds and saying, "YOU SEE HOW FAST THEY MAKE THEIR FOOD? WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS MAKE DELICIOUS FOOD AS FAST AS THEM?"  > Every problem with Darkscape has been caused by mismanagement on their behalf.  A bit condescending. The game was failing because of the game itself. You really think players that just joined DarkScape are like, "Man, all these bug abusers and-and-and lack of engagement with the community is absolutely horrendous".  > Once again, the premise, the idea, is fantastic, and that is why the game was kept alive for a while. The execution was less than good enough, and that is why the game died.  And, once again, that is an opinion. You're saying a game is great and that it could've been better if they put in time, but what if someone else thought the idea was horrible and putting in time was a waste of resources? Are you going to say their opinion is wrong?
I've always viewed it as more of a courtesy/respect thing now rather than permission if anyone does it.  [SEP] > I've always viewed it as more of a courtesy/respect thing now rather than permission if anyone does it.  I viewed it as being condescending towards my fiance. How her father feels about the situation is irrelevant; she's an independent woman.
Hey, I'm sorry you feel this way. I completely understand and I am in the same boat as you as far as how our newsfeeds are inundated with people's political opinions. It drives me crazy that I have to watch some of my friends agree with the very things I hate and it makes me question my friendship with them. Which SUCKS! I'm happy to have quite a few people on my friends list who abide by the common public discussion etiquette- don't discuss politics, money, or religion. I've always been one of those people. I don't engage in public discussion about my politics because you can't change someone's mind.  I would suggest staying away from Facebook for a while. It could be a few months before this election is officially going to be calmed down about, like I'm talking until after the inauguration. Then there will be a lot of hate and chatter for the next four years about how this next president is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. After 8 years, people still won't shut up about Obama, so no one will shut up about this election for years. Guaranteed.   And as far as your mom goes, I'm sorry she jumped on the "everything is offensive" train. It's frustrating to say the very least. With her, you're going to have to calm her down one incident at a time. Make her see that she's overreacting. I have to do this a lot with my dad who gets heated about things more and more often in his old age. Almost every reply to one of these rants is "or maybe...."   Your mom is the most important though, your newsfeed might calm down after the election. Hang in there.  [SEP] > With her, you're going to have to calm her down one incident at a time. Make her see that she's overreacting  Wow. Just wow. That is one of the most ridiculous, condescending things I've seen. OP's mother isn't "overreacting." And saying that he needs to "calm her down" is ridiculous.  You and OP are obviously very young and don't have the ability to put this election into context. Instead of having this incredibly self-involved faith that somehow you know so much more than your parents, maybe you should stop and see why people who have been through many election cycles are so concerned about this election.  As someone with enough experience and political understanding to form a framework for this election, your attitude saddens and frightens me, as you appear to have accepted this level of discourse, this level of violence, this level of sexism, this level of racism, this level of utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law as normal.  If you find this election cycle acceptable, what on earth can come next?  And yes, I fully realize this comment will fall on the deafest of deaf ears. You clearly are secure that you know everything. I sincerely hope that the outcome of the election won't be the thing to prove you wrong. 
No, I meant that if you can't think of any reason why God might have picked Brigham Young then there is no hope of you being able to have a reasonable discussion. He was not a "normal human at the head of a religious movement." He was a powerful, dynamic figure who started out as a carpenter and accomplished the unthinkable in leading tens of thousands of political refugees out of the known United States across the frontier and colonized the entire American west. This is not a religious claim. It is the mainstream historical assessment. If you were to be like some exmo's whose bias is such that they can't even agree with mainstream historians on this much and would rather reduce him to a caricature to be dismissed without any further discussion, then I don't want to waste my time with you. That's all I was saying. [SEP] > If you were to be like some exmo's whose bias is such that they can't even agree with mainstream historians  > I don't want to waste my time with you.  I don't disagree with any of what you said about BY being a powerful, dynamic figure stillDREw. You're being really condescending in your responses, and it doesn't help your argument.  I'm saying what BY did is within the range of normal human behavior. No one can deny that he was an extremely influential leader, but there have been many influential leaders in the history of the world. Here's a list I just found googling, 50 Most Influential American Religious Figures and yep BY is on it at #9. So are JS and GBH. But so are 47 other highly influential leaders who aren't Mormon. BY belongs on that list but he is one of 50. Expand that list to the rest of the world and he's 1 of 1000.   Furthermore, since the beginning of this debate, you have been arguing that BY's views were normal or standard for his time and place. Why are you suddenly making this big thing not being able to have a reasonable discussion with me when I am agreeing with you?
>1) look at your life  >look at your actions  >2) look at your choices  look at your choices  >3) examine how those choices might be leading you to places you may not want to be  Examine how everything you are saying, no one gives a fuck about.  >4) look for ways, other perspectives, etc. that might help you make better ones  Look for ways to find it within yourself to realize this, and shut the fuck up. [SEP] >Look at your choices   I mean, yeah, I do my best to, because it makes me a better person and citizen.   The environment you put yourself in influences your behaviour. As someone who used to let myself be swallowed in anger and resentment, it took cutting out the people who reinforced that, fixing the parts of my life that made me so intensely unhappy, and looking for solutions instead of railing against just how unfair the world is and how unappreciated my brilliant opinions were.   I doubt you're in the place to hear any of this right now, but I hope it's something you can let yourself think about, in the future. I don't mean that in a condescending way, it's miserable to be miserable. I won't say it isn't work to figure out how to be happy and get along with others, but it is possible, and it starts with actually getting to know people who you think you've got all figured out.  > Examine how everything you are saying, no one gives a fuck about.  Clearly someone does, or I wouldn't still be getting replies to this.
A bunch of man-hating horseshit which plays upon traditionalistic sexist stereotypes about aggression and violence between men/women which are to a huge extent not supported by the actual evidence.  Domestic violence  Verbal aggression and controlling behaviour  Child abuse- Table 10  I can link more studies and meta analyses and go through the flaws of studies (for example using terms like "abuse" instead of asking about specific behaviour - given that people are more likely to consider a situation "abuse" when it's male on female than when it's female and male). Most of the most accurate studies show roughly equal rates of male and female aggression in relationships. Gay and lesbian relationships also have roughly equal rates of violence and aggression to heterosexual ones iirc. The evidence for an assumption that it's a gendered issue isn't there.  But I sure am glad that some preachy white knight is defining for me what being a "real man" entails. [SEP] > defining for me what being a "real man" entails.  Certain parts like that struck me as very condescending. They're saying that they want men, women and children to all be equals, but they're plan to get there is for men to stand up, men take the lead, men to be vigilante for signs of abuse, men have to this, men have to do that. That's not equality that's just furthering the stereotype of women being delicate little flowers who need a big, strong man to protect her, ironically, from a man.  I also can't understand how they plan to eradicate domestic violence when their plan is basically more of the same. They don't say what signs to look out for, they don't say how to approach the victim they don't say anything of value at all. All they say is men need to take a stand now.   Edit: I just re read the take action part and all I'll say is God give me strength. The first line of the first point...  > Let’s break out of the narrow definition of manhood.  ...everywhere on that site is the usual, ridiculous men need to be real men nonsense. Then there's the name itself Manup. Why are men ashamed of reporting abuse by a female partner? because they're most likely afraid of being told to Man up.
> You should really look at those charts again. That's exactly the case.  no, its not. the chart only counts gun deaths, not simply "deaths". you maybe don't understand the difference?  >This implied argument, that the Orlando shooter would have been able to kill nearly 50 people in a crowded club   yes, with a bomb for example, if he really wanted to kill all those people.  [SEP] >no, its not. the chart only counts gun deaths, not simply "deaths". you maybe don't understand the difference?  Where you lose me is how any of this is relevant. Aside from your condescending tone, of course. That just makes people unwilling to interact with you, period. You think "knife deaths" would be on the rise if gun ownership were further restricted? I...what? I'm trying very hard not to laugh as I type this apparent encapsulation of your point. There's no difference between an efficient murder machine and throwing a rock at somebody's head, they can both conceivably kill someone? Fucking what?  >yes, with a bomb for example, if he really wanted to kill all those people.  It sounds like you may be getting a handle on this with your unrelated examples, after all. Possessing a bomb or incendiary device with the kind of killing power needed to match what the Orlando shooter did, is already a federal crime. Yet possessing an AR-15 is not, until the very moment it's used to commit a mass shooting.  Followup question: Are infantry in our professional army issued suitcases filled with A Bomb, or are they issued automatic rifles instead? The answer as to why that is would surely point you in the right direction.  
That's the problem, you're a liberal in a subreddit for a self-admitted socialist. Personally I think Sanders is more a social democrat policy wise but it's still not liberal ideology, far from it. I'm not sure if you know this, but socialists are opposed to earning via owning, which is what renting is. So yes, it's obscene because of how it's earned. [SEP] >I’m not sure if you know this  Wow. Condescending much? That’s how you’ll change minds and win elections.   We can disagree about the whether it is moral to earn money by renting property. My guess is that you probably have a Netflix subscription and don’t have a problem renting from them. 
Yes, I do. Without going into the evolutionary aspects of mimeme, meme is a communication symbol, or communication by symbol - such as when a redditor posts a photo of an actor in a well known expression and says "Losing to Auburn makes me feel like...." and the expression shown in the photo illustrates. It is really trite. Memes dominate the reddit front page and newcomers must burrow into reddit to get past that shit to find substance. That is why meme's were, for a time, banned at r/cfb. They could be used as a comment but not as a post. But our great leader gave up as moderator and with the expanding popularity of r/cfb, newcomers like to post memes. That really lowers the football intellect of r/cfb.  Yes, I do know what a meme is. Do you know what the word trite means?  This post is a meme and it is trite. [SEP] Yeah, yeah, I've read Dawkins before. Usually on reddit we use "meme" to refer to what's posted in /r/AdviceAnimals (even though the word applies to many other posts on this site, including OP's), so I was wrong to ask if you knew what that meant.  >Do you know what the word trite means?  Yes, I fucking do, and no need to be condescending (we attack ideas to get our points across, not people). I was trying to ask you a real, honest question, I wasn't trying to be an ass. If you don't like the original post, push the downvote button and move on to a different post. As you can tell, a lot of us enjoyed the original post (hence the 1,000+ upvotes) we're not going to change the entire subreddit just because you want us to.   I took a gander at the comment section, and look, people are discussing college football! Just what you wanted! OP gave us a topic to discuss via meme and we're discussing.
If someone is so affected, wouldn't it be smarter jut to skip the series altogether? Personally, I avoid going to spacedicks, and after three disgusting penis pics mad the front page in one day last week, I just decided to unsubscribe from WTF. Seems to me a NSFW/L tag is ample. Hard to believe someone gets that traumatized by an internet story, yet returns to keep reading them, then asks OP to put up a 'Trigger Warning'.  [SEP] Why are you so offended by something that doesn't affect you at all, but helps other people? Also, this:  > Hard to believe someone gets that traumatized by an internet story, yet returns to keep reading them, then asks OP to put up a 'Trigger Warning'.  isn't what happens. The trigger warnings are for people who may not know about this sub yet, who may be just fine with some things but not others, or who may not know how terrible this particular series is.   I mean, really. How condescending can you get? The "trigger warning" in the title is not for you, it's not about you at all, but you seem to think you can call anybody who wants it "ridiculous and sheltered".
My mistake. I though I made it over the top enough. On the other hand they are trying to make excuses for Milo, so Im getting downvotes for mocking their snowflake. They even defend Breitbart. That is some serious white nationalism shit. [SEP] >On the other hand they are trying to make excuses for Milo, so Im getting downvotes for mocking their snowflake.    You are getting downvotes because:  1) You are condescending and arrogant in your replies  2) Milo isn't a white nationalist, and was publicly called one by a public figure, something that could harm his public image. Asking for the public figure to apologize and correct his public mistake is not unreasonable, nor does it make Milo thin skinned. 
How much energy can you generate this way? Of course, it makes you feel good, but what's the real impact? Do you have a study on this? (I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just sceptical. I expect solar & wind to take up huge amounts of land and ruin even more wildlife than we have till now, let alone the fact that they will lead to worldwide famines.)  Nuclear is safe, cheap, and comparatively inexhaustible (if one recycles the fuel). The only trouble with it is uneducated middle-class hysteria. [SEP] >I expect solar & wind to take up huge amounts of land  You don't seem to have read my comment: we don't necessarily need huge amounts of land being cleared for solar or wind farms. Most buildings have a roof that's not being used for anything much other than keeping the weather out. The energex.com.au link I added above makes it known that it's possible for a house's rooftop solar collectors to generate enough power to exceed your personal needs, allowing power to be "uploaded" to the power grid.  Another option being explored, wave power, provides electricity at night and doesn't require valuable land.  Nuclear is certainly safe if handled carefully. However it needs a lot of expensive care. Slip-ups with nuclear power can have far wider and longer lasting ramifications, than other power sources, and you can't honestly tell me that humans never make mistakes, or accidents can never happen.   If you haven't already got a job in the nuclear industry, they'd probably love your enthusiasm. Your final paragraph of unsubstantiated yet punchy promotion combined with a condescending disparagement (to encourage the reader not to want to associate themselves with the disparaged) was terrific spin.   
People who respond to reasonable questions with "Fuck You" aren't in a position to lecture on why they shouldn't be treated like children. You've done nothing to counter any of my arguments, and frankly done a pretty good job of reinforcing them.  If this was in fact about Sears wanting to cover up a story about the migrant workers they have in the basement performing repairs on Plasma TVs while not wearing static straps and only making 2$ a day, I'd agree (to a point) that this was censorship and wrong.   But that's not remotely the case here.   Just a note, I didn't down vote you, I just think your argument is stupid. [SEP] >People who respond to reasonable questions with "Fuck You" aren't in a position to lecture on why they shouldn't be treated like children.   You have no right to lecture the community as if they were children. Their righteous anger at corporate interference with the flow of information is above your reproach.  The denizens of the internet have a right to act as dicks. And so what if they are? This isn't school and you're NOT our principal.  Censorship is censorship, and your made up arbitrary distinction on what information deserves to be carried through the firewall of corporate interests is morally wrong.  For measure, here's a pictures of a kid in his childhood ballerina costume  Just a note, I did downvote you, as I think you're a dismissive and condescending ass.
There is more to communication than just the words you say. Tone and body language are important as well, as is the context of the words within the conversation. What you're trying to say is that people, not just women, who pay attention to those things and express themselves more through those things should tailor their communication for another person but not the other way around. [SEP] Yes, I understand that non-verbal communication exists. However, given the uncertainties and potential for misinterpretation inherent to non-verbal communication, if you want to guarantee that someone understands, it's incumbent on you to use actual words.  You can't seriously think that people who communicate clearly using language should tailor themselves to people who prefer to communicate through unclear methods. Here's an example:   >What you're trying to say is   As you say, tone is important. I interpret "what you're trying to say" as irredeemably condescending--trust me, when I'm trying to say something, I don't need someone to rephrase it--so I'm no longer interested in having this discussion. If you didn't intend to be obnoxious with that comment, then consider whether it's wise to make up your own interpretation where none may exist.  But don't bring it up with me, because I'm disabling inbox replies. Toodles!
Here is UVic professor Lindsay Tedds' take on tampon exemptions. She argues that low income people would be better off with an increased GST/HST tax credit to make up for lost purchasing power.  Has Irene Mathyssen clarified if she wants tampons zero rated or exempt? According to Tedds, the tax credit to low income earners would be larger if the tax was exempt. If if it was zero rated, the GST/HST tax credit would be lowered. I doubt that would be popular.  What about other "gender based" taxes? Women pay taxes on bras, yeast infection medication, nipple cream, the morning after pill etc. Men also pay taxes on products exclusive to them.   [SEP] > Here is UVic professor Lindsay Tedds' take on tampon exemptions. She argues that low income people would be better off with an increased GST/HST tax credit to make up for lost purchasing power.  Man is she ever condescending.    Anyways, she says the follwing  > What is the problem with zero-rating goods and services? The exclusion benefits high income earners more than the lower income classes which these exemptions were design to protect.   This is literally all she says. She doesn't explain why this is the case.
The thing is, a ton of people try hard not to treat them like scum. People will go into these communities, or talk when these communities leak, and try to give real good advice. But I don't know if it's the people or the community, they're so shut off that any advice is taken as either an insult or "not understanding".  I've tried myself. I've tried talking to people like this and explaining certain things(women are people not prizes, the friendzone doesn't exist how they think, women have agency of choice, women are people) and they don't get it. I had a coworker say he hates asian women because they only go for white men(he's asian). He had a cute tinder match who showed interest in him but he was too timid to set up a date. Like... dude, the problem isn't asian women. The problem is he was treating a relationship almost like if it were owed to him, and also saying he was too ugly or women were too far out of his league.   A ton of people don't treat them like scum. But sadly, if a guy tries to help the guy is written of as insultive or a Chad, and if a girl tries to help, even in the slightest, it is seen as a romantic/sexual advance and the guys ruin a friendship and this woman's perspective of them because they can't distinguish between a woman being nice and advances, then they get so caught up in the rejection that any real advice gets lost.  [SEP] >women are people not prizes, the friendzone doesn't exist how they think, women have agency of choice, women are people  With condescending advice like that you really wonder why they aren't listening?
I'm not gonna lie, I do feel defeated. That's why I've begun accepting the fact that this is life and some shit isn't for everyone. [SEP] >I'm not gonna lie, I do feel defeated. That's why I've begun accepting the fact that this is life and some shit isn't for everyone.  You’re only 19. At the risk of sounding like a condescending adult (which I am), that’s just too damn young to be thinking like that. Y’know, statistically speaking you’ve got like at least another 60 years ahead of you. Your life really is just beginning now. To "accept" that you're just meant to spend the entire rest of your life alone at this age is, quite simply, absurd.
See while I'm actually kind of into the Yuri/Tomoko ship, I don't find Ucchi that compelling. Like it's been funny, and actually good character development for Ucchi, but Ucchi's crush on Tomoko is based around entirely misreading her entire personality. The things she's attracted to about Tomoko aren't actually real. Like, it still has value because it's self-discovery for Ucchi (remember back in the beginning when she was hella grossed out by some gay anime?), but the crush doesn't realllly need to be resolved for that self-discovery to still have value. [SEP] >I don't find Ucchi that compelling...Ucchi's crush on Tomoko is based around entirely misreading her entire personality. The things she's attracted to about Tomoko aren't actually real.  I disagree. I think Ucchi saw just as much - if not more - of Tomokos' "real," crude, haughty, condescending, perverse, idiotic and dickish personality in their single night together as any of the other girls. In fact, rather than "misreading" her personality, Ucchi apparently believed Tomokos' lies which represented how Tomoko honestly wishes she could be. After the trip, Tomoko even comments that she doesn't have to worry about how she acts around Ucchi after finding it uncomfortable eating with Yuri and Mako. Lastly, Ucchi and Tomoko actually seem to have complimentary opposites personalities: Tomoko imagines sexual motives in others while Ucchi imagines sexual motives in Tomoko, Ucchi is outwardly crazy while Tomoko is inwardly crazy.
>If you know with complete confidence, then you aren't using faith or belief. Otherwise, there has to be some doubt.  No there doesn't. I have no doubts about the existence of my Creator, or the situation in general. Faith is simply belief in what cannot be proven, the word and the concept does not require continuous doubt across the board amongst all parties. I was unsure in the beginning, and most certainly made a leap of faith into belief in things unseen when I made the offer, but when that offer was accepted all doubt fell away along with a dark portion of my spirit. From that point on I've known my Creator in a way that dispells any doubts about His existence, the only doubts that remain are in my own ability to do the work before me, and those doubts are fleeting because I always remember that it all comes through Him anyway and whatever I need to accomplish His goals I'll have.    >I still believe you have more potential. That potential was always there. Apparently you needed something to change your life in the right direction. I think that time spent on religion could be better spent on other things that are part of reality. There are a number of personal interests, academic pursuits, experiences, etc    Thank you for thinking there's more, but of course the potential was there, I was built for this after all. Realizing that potential fully would be impossible without the support and guidance of He who created me for the work. I do pursue many interests in a variety of areas, they're part and parcel of my development and growth into the person I'm supposed to be. Advancing my Bash scripting and drawing and animating gif images in the GIMP are two bits of current fun. I'm always learning more and doing something new.    >And what do you mean "we're"? Are you claiming to be Christian now? One of your earlier arguments was straight up refusing to be following a religion.    I usually refrain from using the word. What you will likely define as a "Christian" and what I define as one are probably going to be verrry different things. The majority of those who follow the Christian religion simply aren't, for lack of a better word, Christians. Estimates vary, but most churches I've attended have between 10% and 20% of the people who go regularly that actually show the fruit of a life changed by the kind of interaction with their maker that results in integration of the Holy Spirit within them. The rest go for various reasons, some of them pretty good ones, but don't have the required personal relationship with their maker, misunderstanding or blatently ignoring the concept somehow along the way. I attend a church that is as close to what it should be as I could find, and go to fellowship and share resources and burdens with that percentage of them that are as I am and to help with the ones who attend that aren't. None of the ritualized activities are actually necessary, only that personal internal relationship with the Creator is. The rest is mostly either comfort for those who have none or ritualized extensions of things I do virtually every day anyway, things like the Lord's Supper for example, I remember Him every time I eat and especially when I eat with others who are as I am, why would I require a special snack for that? I participate if I'm there, if I miss it I miss it, it's of no concern.    God, Christ, the Holy Spirit. They're facets of the same being, the Creator of this place, and they permeate this universe. Thanks to accepting and being accepted in turn, voluntarily giving up the independence granted me by my Creator in the first place, the Holy Spirit is within me and a part of my Spirit as well. I have been under construction ever since, being rebuilt from the inside out, and the result is someone new. I wasn't kidding when I said I once dismssed this as easily as you do now, but who I am today is incapable of denying or renouncing my Creator, it simply isn't within me to do so, I love my Lord too much and am enjoying the grand adventure of travelling this path too much for the possibility to ever be entertained.  [SEP] >No there doesn't.  I'd say there does. You may feel certain, but without that proof there is some doubt, whether or not you'll recognize it. You specifically ignored the possibility that this is all an issue with your perceptions, which also needs to be recognized. Your view of religion is definitely detached from those in the same category of religion as you, for the most part. Unless you also believe you are somehow more special than the others, it seems strange that so many people would be wrong about their religion and so few, like yourself, would be right. Your view and experience is definitely deviant when compared the vast majority.  >What you will likely define as a "Christian"  Someone who is monotheistic and believes Jesus Christ was the messiah. Pretty much any other details become variant specific.  >why would I require a special snack for that?  Assuming you're referring to the Eucharist: Don't you think that's amazingly insulting and dismissive to the denominations that follow that? Especially since some treat it literally as the body and blood of Christ. It would be pretty shitty if you were simply calling that a snack.  I think this might get to the biggest root of my problem with your view: You've become so conceited in your belief that you simply dismiss the possibility of others being right. I'd even go as far as to say that you are condescending towards other views.  >they permeate this universe  Up until the point of observability.  > I wasn't kidding when I said I once dismssed this as easily as you do now  I wasn't really in doubt of that. It doesn't really add validity to your point.  >who I am today is incapable of denying or renouncing my Creator  Again: This doesn't say much. Many people of varying faiths are this dedicated, or more dedicated, to their religion.  >path too much for the possibility to ever be entertained.  And here it is: It doesn't matter what anyone else says or has to offer. You are set in your belief and simply aren't willing to think of the alternatives. As closed minded as you may imagine me to be, I am still open to changing my views when the reason comes. None of my knowledge or views is so set in stone that I would refuse to consider the alternatives. 
God you are as thick as you are uninspired with your insults.  I already addressed the songbirds comment. If you can't understand my point then maybe you should go back to some middle-school english. All the 'songbirds would thank us' means is that the songbirds would benefit from the killing of cats. That is all it means. You taking any more meaning from it is on you and not him. He does not call for or explicitly approve of YOUR ridiculous notion of killing of cats.  I understand burden of proof etc. etc., I don't care enough about educating you, or making you believe me to show you something so easily available. It's just funny to me that you are so adamant on a point that you are so clearly wrong about. It is not in debate that the songbirds would benefit/thank us from less cats.  Another thing - you don't know that it is someone's pet, in fact it looks like a stray to me - scraggly and in the middle of what looks like a fucking jungle. And yeah, I would still save it despite that.  The reason why I'm bothering with this is cuz you're acting like an ass, deconstructing his argument into - oh i guess we should just kill all cats - something he never said or suggested.  And he was adding to the conversation - you just seem too slow to get it. You were arguing the pro's and cons of saving that cat's life vs. letting it get eaten - OP of comment chain suggesting it was saved due to cuteness to the detriment of the other animal and then you with sentimental value etc.,. And then him with the destructiveness of that cat. A very clear (to anyone else, apparently not you) chain of pros and cons that does add to the conversation.  I'm a environmental conservation major so yeah it is something I actually care about - not overly but it is one thing among many I find interesting.   So what WAS the actual subject at hand? Was it you ridiculing snakesandstuff for proposing killing of cats (fucking lol), or was it you ridiculing him for the notion that the songbirds would thank us. You're completely wrong either way, and if it was anyone arguing for the sake of arguing it was clearly you the way you so quickly jumped to a straw man argument and general douchiness. [SEP] > All the 'songbirds would thank us' means is that the songbirds would benefit from the killing of cats. That is all it means. You taking any more meaning from it is on you and not him. He does not call for or explicitly approve of YOUR ridiculous notion of killing of cats.  By saying "the songbirds would thank us" he's giving credence to the idea of killing all domestic cats because he's not outright disapproving it. By leaving what I said up in the air, and not immediately dismissing it, he's giving it intellectual stock. That is what's ridiculous. Either that, or he's joking around, which shares the same amount of value within the discussion. None.  >I don't care enough about educating you, or making you believe me to show you something so easily available.  And I don't care enough about the issue you're trying to prove to me, because it's not relevant to my point. If it's so easily available then it's just as easily provided. Again, not my job, and not my concern.  > It's just funny to me that you are so adamant on a point that you are so clearly wrong about.  And what exactly is it that I am wrong about? I never made a statement about my position on the matter one way or the other.  >The reason why I'm bothering with this is cuz you're acting like an ass, deconstructing his argument into - oh i guess we should just kill all cats  In essence, that was what he was saying(albeit you left out "non-native" cats). I simply applied his logic to a more grander scale to show him how nonsensical the things he was saying were.  > You were arguing the pro's and cons of saving that cat's life vs. letting it get eaten  No, this is where you have a fundamental misunderstanding. The argument was based on whether or not people save cats simply because they are cute. While I never argued against this, I argued against it being the sole reason, which is why I brought up that someone would save a cat because of its sentimental value to its owner.  >Another thing - you don't know that it is someone's pet, in fact it looks like a stray to me - scraggly and in the middle of what looks like a fucking jungle. And yeah, I would still save it despite that.  Sure, it could be a stray. I never said it wasn't. I'm simply saying that someone might have saved that cat because they believed it could have belonged to someone. Not just because they thought it was cute.  >and if it was anyone arguing for the sake of arguing it was clearly you the way you so quickly jumped to a straw man argument and general douchiness.  Are you kidding me? You came out of nowhere telling me "you don't know what the fuck you're talking about" and say I came at you acting like a douche? "Fucking lol" indeed. Don't try to act like a victim. Try being less condescending and maybe you won't have to be upset when you get a taste of your own medicine.
You want to bet? People often uncritically evaluate statements like that which are backed up by an authoritative source (in this case CNN) without even reading the source article. And even more would make the same judgement after reading the news article. "Boy, those Apple users sure are insane!"  And they indulge in this behavior much more frequently when whatever they're reading matches with their selection biases.  Further, I'm betting that you know all of this really well. You're just picking nits here, because you don't like to admit you're wrong. Which is another very human thing to do. [SEP] You assume reddit users can't think for themselves. Anyone who doesn't read everything critically doesn't deserve to be a part of the discourse. (And you know this was not an authoritative source, right? How often do reddit users believe the stuff they hear from poor internet sources? Not very often.)  > And they indulge in this behavior much more frequently when whatever they're reading matches with their selection biases.  I don't think you know what "selection bias" means. You are certainly misusing it here.  > You're just picking nits here, because you don't like to admit you're wrong. Which is another very human thing to do.  What a douchey, condescending, nonsensical thing to say. You criticize my first posts by being defensive/not wanting to admit that I am wrong. That makes absolutely no sense. I posted because the stuff you are saying is pseudo-intellectual nonsense that gets lots of people to agree with you even though it is obviously wrong. 
So now your proving my point, ur trying to dismiss Joe censoring because of the other shit going on. I believe it's all valid to talk about.   But i sort of agree on the morals point, its valid cuz i agree its valid. So let me rephrase. Some of these comments ive seen werent hostile in the slighest, only put forth their opinion. One good example is a yotuber by name Rags. A guy who was initially in favor of Joe, in fact trusted in him and went to him for reviews. I watch alot of Rags videos and have heard him reference Joe as a trustworthy critic several times. If u look up Rags twitter you will find his comment was pure criticism and not in any way hostile or mean. That Joe is deleting those sort of comments, is hypocritical as fuck. [SEP] > So now your proving my point, ur trying to dismiss Joe censoring because of the other shit going on. I believe it's all valid to talk about.   What the fuck? How did you gather any of that from the above?  > But i sort of agree on the morals point, its valid cuz i agree its valid  Seriously..are you not a native English speaker? I don't think you're understanding this.   > So let me rephrase. Some of these comments ive seen werent hostile in the slighest, only put forth their opinion. One good example is a yotuber by name Rags. A guy who was initially in favor of Joe, in fact trusted in him and went to him for reviews. I watch alot of Rags videos and have heard him reference Joe as a trustworthy critic several times. If u look up Rags twitter you will find his comment was pure criticism and not in any way hostile or mean. That Joe is deleting those sort of comments, is hypocritical as fuck.   This still misses the point. My response was literally about how the story is now about the comments, not criticism because the viewers make that so.   If you're referencing this,  http  it seems like everyone is legitimately only mentioning the Rags comment being censored.  But yeah, deleting the comment was shitty but this wasn't pure criticism anyway. It's fairly condescending and I'd be more outraged if it was legitimate criticism. Seems like that video in general is wiped of comments, although a decent portion are negative regardless of any potential deletions.
Excuse me for doing so, but I assumed that when you said,  > This one in particular is definitely worth reading  "definitely worth reading" would indicate that you thought it was a good story. I asked you this question, and provided my thoughts on the topic, in order to foster conversation about it. Perhaps I realize that I could be wrong and wanted your input. But hey, if you just want to downvote and throw a fit for someone having a different opinion than you, we can play that game too. Your turn. [SEP] >"definitely worth reading" would indicate that you thought it was a good story  This is true, yes. Again, it is only in my own opinion, I can't call it an objectively good story, nor would I. A person can make a recommendation without suggesting only their viewpoint is correct.   > But hey, if you just want to downvote and throw a fit for someone having a different opinion than you, we can play that game too. Your turn.  Firstly, I didn't downvote you. Secondly, "throwing a fit"? Really? If you can show that my comment was some sort of tantrum, feel free. As it is that's nothing more than petty shitflinging. A condescending attitude does not help either, other than than to show you aren't interested in a conversation and input, just an argument.  If you are actually interested in discussing why I find it a good story, however; I found Mel Li to be excellent at characterization - she was able to establish more identity for a character in one article than many authors have managed in several. Ultimately yes, Mina and Denn are unimportant to the story at large. But she made them feel important to me in their own right, or at least, made them as interesting as any of the Superfriends. As an example,  >Mina's fists clenched around her long knife, the familiar wooden handle and heft of it settling pleasantly into place. A surge of familiar bitterness rose in her chest, savage and warm, rattling against her ribs. She let out a long, ragged tone that reverberated back at her from the ravine below. She smiled, satisfied with any way to break the oppressive silence.  We see a lot of Mina in this one paragraph. Restless eagerness, primal intensity, a culture of savagery, many things that go into defining her character. The imagery Li uses is also delightfully evocative: "Rattling against her ribs", "the graceless enthusiasm of a baloth pup", "pseudopods blooming from its skin and bristling along its radial crests". She puts you into the scene, makes you experience it and see it as the characters do, feel it as they do.
Got it on the out of state point. I'm not looking to date just yet because I have some serious edema at the moment and I look like a human blowfish. I also didn't state what ages I would accept, I asked what was normal these days. These aren't requirements or specific criteria I'm seeking. This was hypothetical to see if seeking someone who also has an illness was the best course of action, which it doesn't appear to be.  It's "just dating" to you, but it's a big step for me. I didn't use any spreadsheets btw, lol.  Thanks for your input, much appreciated. [SEP] > I look like a human blowfish  Aww, you poor thing! Hopefully that gets better soon!  Based on your response, I think I may have come off as a bit harsh. I understand that this is a tricky concept for someone right out of the gate. I was a bit of a late starter myself, so I understand to a degree. It was just so long ago, I forget sometimes.   > I asked what was normal these days.  The "rule" which is really more of a joke, is the youngest person someone can date, is half your age + 7. So you shouldn't go below 21 (27/2 + 7 =20.5) or over 40 (40/2 + 7 = 27). It's really just a joke, but it actually doesn't work out too badly. Your situation, I'd say open up the age thing pretty broadly, because who knows. In some ways, you are going to have way MORE experience than someone your age (the facing immanent death thing is quite an experience), but in other ways you are going to be behind (like in relationships). I could see how dating someone who has also dealt with chronic illness could solve this, but I have a feeling it isn't necessary. Plenty of people have cared for loved ones with serious illnesses, even though they may not have one themselves. So, I'd say just be open minded out age. A younger woman may be more on your level when it comes to dating experience, but an older woman may be more likely to not really care. Not because she's settling, but because she just has the experience to know that it really doesn't matter. So it could go either way. Everyone has a story and you won't know what it is until you get to know them.   Also, this is why online dating is helpful. If you briefly mention your illness in your profile, ladies who are superficial and "don't want to deal with that" are going to eliminate themselves from your selection (which is really doing you a favor). So that will help weed out people who don't have the life experience or depth to understand that an illness doesn't define a person. I think that is kind of understaning is much more important than age. But to briefly answer, most people keep within 5 years. Its more common for women to go up to 8 - 10 years older. Men usually go a bit younger and rarely more than 2 - 4 years older.    > This was hypothetical to see if seeking someone who also has an illness was the best course of action, which it doesn't appear to be.   Yes, I agree. It doesn't. I can see how it would have benefits, but the difference between dating someone with or without a chronic illness would be negligible compared all the other compatibility factors.   > It's "just dating" to you, but it's a big step for me  I understand that. What I meant was, you don't know what you don't know. It just seems that you are trying to prepare for something that you can really only learn by doing. I didn't mean to diminish the importance of it to you...but I think you'll look back on this post and see how.....cute (for lack of a better word?) it is in the future. I REALLY don't mean that to sound condescending. It's just something you have to experience to understand that you really can't just pick criteria and think you'll pull a wife out of the hat (you say you are not doing this, but I still think you are to a degree mentally picking criteria even if they aren't hard and fast rules).   Here's the important part that I hope you read:  Just take each date as a fun new experience. Go and do things that you would want to do anyway, or things you never thought to try (if she suggests something). Treat it like you are just meeting an old friend!   Why? Because the honest truth is, more dates aren't going to lead to second dates than ones that do. You may get lucky and meet the love of your life right off the bat, but chances are, you gotta get out there and take your chances for a bit. It can become easy to get jaded and see the dates as "just wasting your time"....but the truth is, no one owes you anything. No matter how good of a time you show her, she just might not be interested in anything more. BUT, if you remember that it's okay to have experiences just for the sake of experiencing something fun and new, then dating can be a GREAT time. See a new restaurant you want to try? Go there on a date. Never checked out that aquarium...date night! Try to keep that frame. You may meet lots of cool new friends in the process even if they aren't your soulmate.  Also, a way to mitigate the girls who just want attention and dates (I know they exist...my dates have told me horror stories) is to talk to them for at least a week or so online before meeting. Too much longer and she'll probably start to lose interest, but too much shorter (like same or next day) and she's probably just looking for someone to take her out that night and doesn't care who it is.   Good luck out there. But most importantly HAVE FUN. If you treat each date like a job interview or a plan to level up to the next phase in life, you are going to miss out on a lot of the awesomeness. Just soak up the experiences!
So it's you who is childishly downvoting all of my comments, then. I literally said that I was just posting extra information for others reading a few posts ago, but whatever. Hope you can learn to take criticism better, especially on something you clearly have not "been extensively trained in." [SEP] >Hope you can learn to take criticism better, especially on something you clearly have not "been extensively trained in."  My training is clearly not as extensive as your training in being a condescending fucking asshole. God, I really feel bad for the people you work with in "finance."
Schools have a library. Seems like the right answer is to really push using the library. I mean it’s like Netflix except it’s free and for books.  [SEP] > schools have a library  That’s not the point. OP was talking about the sadness and shame of not being able to order/receive books. As someone who never got to buy books from the book fair because my parents were divorced and my mom couldn’t afford to buy books for all of us kids, your comment comes off as super condescending. Like “get over it, there’s thousands of books in the library you have nothing to complain about” 
> So we're going completely ignore context?  I'm ignoring context? The context is you getting butthurt over white people "culturally appropriating" something that "isn't theirs," or, in other words, you are getting frustrated over white people not segregating cultures. I'm not ignoring the context here. You are angered by individuals of a race refusing to segregate themselves, and you take this anger and make sweeping statements about said race.   I'm sorry, but you're just flat out racist.   >I never mentioned any of those.  Now you're just being silly. You're part of the group here bringing up social justice. Look at your posts here. You get mad at white people because they refused to segregate cultures so you decide to make statements about their entire race. You are criticizing people for refusing to segregate.   My point is that you need to get over yourself. Racism lost in the western world. We refused to segregate in the 50s, and we will refuse now. People concerned about "social justice" and "cultural appropriation" still use racist language to this day to demean people, which is why I brought up the fact that bigots use phrases like "people of color."  No one likes racism, and no one likes segregation. Get the fuck off the internet if you're going to spend your time advocating segregation of cultures.  [SEP] >I'm ignoring context? The context is you getting butthurt over white people "culturally appropriating" something that "isn't theirs," or, in other words, you are getting frustrated over white people not segregating cultures. I'm not ignoring the context here. You are angered by individuals of a race refusing to segregate themselves, and you take this anger and make sweeping statements about said race.   Lol. Alright man. It's pretty obvious that you misunderstood my point. I'm not trying to advocate the segregation of races. I'm not butt hurt about cultural appropriation. I was calling out someone who acted like he was doing minorities a favor by showing interest, which is why I responded the way that I did.   >I'm sorry, but you're just flat out racist.   And you're super understanding and empathetic. Got it.   >Now you're just being silly. You're part of the group here bringing up social justice. Look at your posts here. You get mad at white people because they refused to segregate cultures so you decide to make statements about their entire race. You are criticizing people for refusing to segregate.   You're making some pretty huge assumptions. This was never about social justice. It was about one guy being a condescending jerk, to which I responded.   >My point is that you need to get over yourself. Racism lost in the western world. We refused to segregate in the 50s, and we will refuse now. People concerned about "social justice" and "cultural appropriation" still use racist language to this day to demean people, which is why I brought up the fact that bigots use phrases like "people of color."  You keep putting all these words in my mouth. Not once did I suggest segregation or say that I want white people to stay in their lane. I said it was dumb to expect minorities to be happy that some white people are bothering to "show interest."   >No one likes racism, and no one likes segregation. Get the fuck off the internet if you're going to spend your time advocating segregation of cultures.    You've made up your mind and are having a completely different argument. I've tried to discuss it relatively rationally so far, but it's clearly not worth the effort. Have a good one.  
Wow. This gives an entirely new perspective of our planet. We're so used to thinking the earth is mostly land with some water in between. But really, it's all water with some land here and there. [SEP] >We're so used to thinking the earth is mostly land with some water in between  I dont mean this in a condescending way, I promise, but if thats how you feel, you should really spend some time out in the ocean. Its a truly humbling experience. 
1.8 % of electors didn’t vote for who they were supposed to, and that’s only legal in 20 states. It had no effect on the election and hasn’t for some time.   Why on earth should fewer people have a larger say in voting? Wouldn’t it be more fair to give the most people what they want? The larger states bring more money, they have more people, they should have a bigger say in everything. Also, isn’t representatives having the last say in everything literally the point of the electoral college? Furthermore, one of the jobs of those representatives was to choose a better candidate if the one the people chose failed, which A) clearly doesn’t happen anymore, and B) is not a fucking democracy.  The whole point of the senate is so that big states can’t infringe on the rights of small states, there are 100 senators, 2 for each state, regardless of population.   And to top this mess off, you expect me to believe that smaller states would... secede? The weakest, least important, and least populous & poorest parts of the US would secede from the good parts of the country because they didn’t have enough say? You realize that even when the incredibly rich part of the country seceded, it lost? The electoral college does nothing to protect smaller states, and it was never meant to. It was meant to keep the masses from electing someone terrible, which is ridiculous and has happened multiple times, and is made obsolete by a little metal and glass rectangle you keep in your pocket with access to all of the knowledge ever recorded.   One more point, because I’m mad: the electors are no longer proportional to states populations, and big states have grown faster, meaning that more people are less represented. It’s the small states preventing constitutional reform that would bring a system in which everyone gets an equal vote: how can you say no to that? [SEP] > Why on earth should fewer people have a larger say in voting? Wouldn’t it be more fair to give the most people what they want?   No. You need to reconsider what what a government is and learn how they’ve been abused historically. You don’t magically gain moral authority to extort people because “two against one we have fun”. You seem to think everything would be better off if the entire nation just voted in every issue and 51% wins out. I can’t describe to you how clueless and historically illiterate this belief is. If you want to see how a country that values communal rights fairs over a country that values individual rights: look at the French Revolution. You seriously need to reconsider what a government actually is: a legal monopoly on violence. It’s hilarious how Democrats pretend to care about minorities while simultaneously saying to fuck minorities over any time you get 51% of people to agree.  It makes sense to have a 51% vote if you’re considering what to eat for dinner. It doesn’t if one of you is on the menu. Sure it’s unfair California doesn’t have more of a say in issues that don’t threaten people’s life or liberty, but on the whole it’s worth it to prevent California from being able to have a huge say on issues that do threaten life and liberty (imagine what the country would look like if California could dictate the internal politics of Oklahoma). The historical trend was for smaller states to be abused by larger ones and the founders prevented this with an ideal balance that protects small states while also giving states like california a huge say in policy. The fundamental nature of government is to violently extort people, it has to be extremely limited and protect minorities, and this is worth whatever unfairness Californians experience by effectively having less of a vote than people in Oklahoma.  The electors having the last say is not the point, it’s largely outdated, although it still may be useful in the future. The real benefit of the electoral college today is to give more power to small, vulnerable states.  You’ve never heard of the Connecticut compromise apparently. Yeah there’s two senators for each state. They don’t do shit to protect their own states from bigger ones and the federal government. They do more for their party. The original plan was to have state legislators elect senators, and the senators could be recalled if they didn’t do exactly as the state legislature wanted. That’s not what happened. The senate does little to protect the people in small states but it’s corrupted by careerism. You really think Bernie Sanders is looking out for Vermont rather than progressing a national platform for Democrats?  PS try not to take my condescending language seriously or personally it’s just the way I talk because I am constantly arguing. I don’t actually think you’re an idiot but I do think you haven’t been exposed to relevant history that would give you a better appreciation for the electoral college.
I agree with the sentiment. But if you read the article it documents how the institutionalized cooperative movement has produced, and is producing, traditional corporate powerhouses. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."   Also, that piece had way too much circumstantial evidence pandering to the socialist mob mentality.  [SEP] >sentiment   > if you read the article  I hate responses that begin by being condescending.  I have already covered the points you have made.   
When have they played better than us? They have lost to Newcastle, Watford, West Ham, drawn vs Exeter just in the past two weeks.   And I just responded to your last post, so go read that to gain some knowledge. [SEP] >And I just responded to your last post, so go read that to gain some knowledge.  You only get to be condescending when you actually comprehend the messages behind what others are saying with respect to how they're perceiving this game... But you've once again shown your ability to misread and misconstrue almost everything by missing the point yet again.   Yeah... No thanks.
If being told in confidence that a friend of yours suffered from a sexual assault or was raped by someone you both know (or are part of a larger group, like in college or work):  DO NOT RESPOND WITH THREATS OF VIOLENCE TO THE PERPETRATOR  (I'll kill them, tell me who it is and I'll fuck them up etc)  Your friend is probably racked with enough anxiety and is worried about social standing and violence will give them more stress. Rape claims are such a confusing, scary mess for the survivor to make, social groups do not handle them well at all and people end up vilifying the victim. You mightn't think it's that bad to be mad about someone hurting your friend but there's a better solution.  Tell them that you believe them, you're sad to hear it and you're there for them. They're not broken, they're still your friend, they're just sensitive and confused.   Believing them in confidence and supporting them is key. Right now their sense of trust is all kinds of fucked up. Help them see a doctor/counselor or talk it out.  You still don't have to be nice to the perp, just don't make a scene on your friend's behalf unprompted, it'll cause them more stress.  Source: Learned the hard way, added to a close friend's stress and social anxiety by getting mad. Save the anger for your own privacy.  Edit: It's disappointing that people are saying   "if you don't go to the police, you're endangering others!"  What I mean is, that statement has an element of victim blaming in it. "Do this or you're doing a bad thing!"  When someone is raped their sense of trust in other people and right and wrong is in tatters. Chances are they're blaming themselves for what happened; after all, it was likely a friend or family member that disregarded their consent, a person they (used to) trust. They're thinking   "is what they did wrong? should i have been clearer? am i wrong for feeling like this? why would they do this? could i have been more responsible?"   and many other questions that are easy for a third party to answer, but painfully difficult for a victim to answer themselves.  So when they don't want to go to the police because who fucking cares what else they don't fucking want to go it's not anyone else's fucking decision (sorry, kinda mad but its a bottom line issue) and someone tells them the way they feel about the ongoing situation is dangerous and bad and irresponsible, it's very difficult to feel like they have any control over anything. And that's bad.  Others have commented accurately that giving power and agency back to the survivor is the goal. Also to those posing questions about believing a survivor blindly, I was referring to someone close to you. Family issues are a mess, I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to handle it then.  But you have no idea how terrifyingly common sexual assault is, particularly against women. I know there's an institutional problem regarding rape claims, but please, when it comes to those you care about, your trust in their word and their agency is immeasurably valuable.  Edit 2 long post edition: Rape culture is a very real and very complex issue. Please research it, it will help you understand.  Rape is less often an instance of some mysterious stranger jumping out of the bushes. In reality it's more often someone the survivor knows, through family or friends that disregards another person's verbal consent and agency in a situation in order to achieve the goal of sex.  This ranges from the very blunt and very violent method as we all know of, to the very insidious and sneaky way of goading and pestering until one party gives up saying 'No' because the other isn't listening. I know people that blame themselves saying "I Should have been clearer that I didn't want to have sex".  Utterly disgraceful that they are pushed by social pressure and self doubt into the position of thinking that. This is not bartering, this is not a negotiation; if someone does not want you to touch/use/do whatever to their body and you disregard that, it is rape. It's not exclusively violent but it is always traumatic to lose power and agency over your own body.  Often times the victim is probably being polite and letting the friend/family member/authority figure that is bigger than them down easily so they don't get mad.  Edit 3 my cock up edition: got a bit heated earlier and wrote something unclear and blame-y. Removed this line as it was pointed out that it's loaded and unhelpful: "Shifting blame away from the perpetrator (as usual) and putting pressure on the survivor, stigmatizing them (as usual)." [SEP] > you're sad to hear it  that line always sounded super dismissive and condescending to me. 
> I was entirely honest in saying I am not entirely sure if defect is the right word as I have little to know evolutionary biology  Yeah, that's obvious. So maybe you should just shut the fuck up you shitstain.  > I am just curious if you honestly feel my post was an attempt to insult gay people?  No, I think calling groups of people inherently defective out of ignorance is jolly-good behavior!  Whether you're intentionally insulting gay people, or whether you're just too stupid and lacking in empathy to avoiding insulting us, is a distinction without a difference.  How about you fix those defects in yourself, asshole. [SEP] I am going to start me rebuttle by quoting what you said to me, in another comment, only moments ago  >Now how about you defend your opinion rather than getting all emotional on me.  Now I will see if you can take your advice. (PS: for me defending my opinion, see my last reply, this one will simply be me ripping on you)  >Yeah, that's obvious. So maybe you should just shut the fuck up you shitstain.  Who is emotional? Who is not replying to content?  >No, I think calling groups of people inherently defective out of ignorance is jolly-good behavior!  The exclimation mark really drives this one home! Your entire approach to this was counter debate. You have clearly been trying to antognize me from the start. That is a terrible tactic that only serves to help you make yourself feel like a victim. If my post is so clearly derrogatory, so abundantly rude, and so intuitively wrong; why is it the top comment. This community is profoudly supportive of human rights.  >Whether you're intentionally insulting gay people, or whether you're just too stupid and lacking in empathy to avoiding insulting us, is a distinction without a difference.  Defending ones self after being called stupid is really an internal circle jerk. I know my limits, and they certainly do not stem from inadequate comprehension. The empathy you ask me to show, is not empathy at all, but an request to treat any and all issues surrounding homosexuality with kid gloves, and that would be quite condescending of me.  Fuck. That. Shit.  I hope you die alone so nobody has to put up with your fucking drama. Also, that was really fucking pathetic trying to grab some more credibility to your rant by pointing out (and pretending to be subtle) that you yourself are gay/lesbian.
Well thanks for calling me smart.  I'm an engineer: I understand science more than most people, but when I think about what I know, and that when I die, it might just disappear? And my parents and friends and family are just going to disappear? It seems like such a fucking waste. That's why religion is still in my life.  Now you could argue "Well, why don't you believe in Christianity or Islam?" Well, I'd first say that I was born into Judaism, and then say I don't think eating crackers and drinking wine on Sunday is actually eating the blood and flesh of some guy who lived 2000 years ago. And also, virgin birth just makes no goddamn sense. And Mohammed didn't just fly to Jerusalem (I'm nitpicking here, but there are plenty of other things). But then again, in Judaism, I don't think God parted the seas for Moses or the world just started over again with Noah. I identify as Jewish, but I'm not deeply religious. For fuck's sake I'm eating bacon right now! But I am aware of my family's history and I respect it. History may not be important to you, but it is to me. Judaism has always part of my life, and while I don't believe in everything that is told in the Talmud, I identify with the religion.   But I'm rambling.  I don't know what "holocaust" me means...do you mean that I'm worried that someone wants to kill me? Pretty much true. Some fundamentalists want to see me dead because I was born a Jew. So I've got to stand up for what I am because if I don't then who will?  And with regards to the video. Being Jewish adds a different perspective. If people want to represent that then that's fine. There have been instances on Reddit where I've identified as Jewish, but I've also identified as a student, a Canadian, a Quebecer, a Montrealer, an Anglophone, the list goes on. The whole point of most intelligent discussions is to provide different insight, recalling events from different perspectives to contribute to the overall picture. Jews do it a lot more than most, well, because we like to. There's a saying "You get 2 Jews in one room you'll get three opinions." We like to get our point of view across for a multitude of reasons, which I don't think need to be explained at this time. But I stand by what I said: We don't WANT to be in the news all the time. No news is good news, IMO.  So fine, we're good at rallying support, okay? You win. But I'll fight you on the fact that someone else tells me who to vote for or how to contribute. I make my own decisions, thank you very much.  I'm actually taking a media class right now which talked about today's generation being less responsive to ads and lobbys and such things, because we are so used to it. Just food for thought.   [SEP] My best friend is an engineer. Brilliant guy but he's extremely technical and not quite able to think non analytically. It makes him slightly emotionless.  You can still respect your religion without going all loopy about it.  You're eating bacon, but you still call yourself somewhat religious. I think that's hypocritical personally since it gives you the ability to pick and choose what tenents you want to accept. It' like Christians who get drunk and fuck hookers then go to church the next day, throw $10 in the donation hat and walk away 'purified'.  > I don't know what "holocaust" me means...do you mean that I'm worried that someone wants to kill me? Pretty much true. Some fundamentalists want to see me dead because I was born a Jew. So I've got to stand up for what I am because if I don't then who will?  Yeah great, it works both ways. Have you seen how some of the settlers treat the Palistinians?  No one wants to kill you because you're a Jew. The might want to fuck with you because of Israel but that's the choice that you're imposing on yourself solely from throwmedown guilt/fear fallacies where you blindly support Israel just because of a religious attitudes that were deeply ingrained since you were a kid.  I'll bet you've been hearing that stuff your entire life.  That's shitty man.  > The whole point of most intelligent discussions is to provide different insight, recalling events from different perspectives to contribute to the overall picture. Jews do it a lot more than most, well, because we like to. There's a saying "You get 2 Jews in one room you'll get three opinions." We like to get our point of view across for a multitude of reasons, which I don't think need to be explained at this time. But I stand by what I said: We don't WANT to be in the news all the time. No news is good news, IMO.  Do you know how many times you've just generalized Jews in your own statement?  Sorry man, that's another fallacy. It's like saying all poor white people are racists, or saying that all natives are all on welfare.  It's not true.  You think Jewish people are the only ones capable of intelligent conversation? That's a little condescending really. I love friendly arguments over many topics.  Really, you need to stop generalizing yourself as some distinct culture that is bred to act certain ways. It's not realistic. People are defined from their upbringings whether it's home, school, or families but you're still all individuals. You take offense to me saying that you're told to vote certain ways, but you accept the more positive epithets cause, well, they make you feel better.  It's the same reason Christians deem themselves more moral than anyone else. It's alo the same reason Athiests think they're better than the Christians.
Downvoted? You hold a moderate and respectable position on this topic. From a Christian point of view, most of us aren't trying to shove religion down anyone's throats. It makes sense that a school with a presumably large Christian population would want a prayer during their graduation, and it hardly seems an injustice when (I'm assuming) no one is being forced to participate in the prayer. Most Christians, including myself, view this as an intolerance of our religion.  I'm not up to snuff on government-institutionalized religion in the US, but certainly their are bigger battles to be fought. [SEP] > Most Christians, including myself, view this as an intolerance of our religion.  I have noticed a rather big divide between the American Christians and well, the rest. if you made this argument in an Australian congregation you would be looked at like you are crazy.   I cannot speak for "most" as I do not know them, I can however comment on how my family and community view this.  Its a public school not a church our Prayer has no place at any official function, unless all religions and belief systems have equal representation and they have been specifically requested to attend.  As someone who graduated from a Christian school and found the prayer delivered by the Principals daughter nauseating, boring, irrelevant and condescending I say the more people we can spare from this mental torture the better.
> We are talking about men in the middle of attempting to transform into women  Every athletic organization I'm aware of requires a year or more on HRT, which isn't really "the middle". That's sort of the point.  > There is no correlation to race, but points for effort.   They weren't claiming otherwise - only that your (very weak) arguments have symmetric versions that would apply in those cases. [SEP] > Fighting as part of a professional sport is totally equivalent to domestic violence, right? This is easily the most ridiculous segment of your post.  > They weren't claiming otherwise - only that your (very weak) arguments have symmetric versions that would apply in those cases.  I came here to hopefully understand the other side of the transgender in MMA argument, not read condescending remarks from someone who clearly feels superior to the OP. You do a disservice to your argument by making comments like that.  If it helps, I'm more on the side of allowing non-cis MMA fighters compete, but I'm not 100% sure.
>The DNA belongs to the person whom it is inside of, what's your point?  Its not relevant to the crime they are investigating i.e. having the boyfriends DNA brings them exactly zero inches closer to finding the perpetrator  >Yes, but you gain evidence in the murder investigation of the fetus.  Yea see, life legally starts at birth so how can you murder something that is not legally alive? Oh they're living cells?! Will I be charged with murder if I have my appendix removed?    http   [SEP] >Its not relevant to the crime they are investigating i.e  The police believe that this person got the woman pregnant. She had an abortion. She claimed the person who got her pregnant, raped her. At best his DNA is evidence of her crime, at worst it is evidence of his.   >Yea see, life legally starts at birth  Even if you change the law? The condescending tone you liberals take makes it so satisfying to knock you down.  Do you have a learning disability why can't you grasp this?   http ~c200
Strawman wall of text? I could have just answered you quickly but you would you just attack my position. Scripture is all that matter as a Christian. Any other readings mean nothing if not backed by scripture. That wall of text had tons of scripture supporting it. To bad you don't want to expand you faith by hearing all sides not just the Catholic indoctrination.    2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” [SEP] > Strawman wall of text?   Yes, strawman wall of text. Every claim you make betrays a massive ignorance of Catholic belief as well as the contents of Scripture. (And by you, I mean the GotQuestions garbage you cut and paste.)  For example:  >Catholics and Anglicans recognize confirmation as one of seven sacraments. The Bible, however, is silent on the matter of such a ritual. In fact, the idea that a person can “confirm” to another that he/she is in the faith is denied in Scripture.  Not only do does the author have no idea what Confirmation is, but it's ignoring that it occurs multiple times in Acts. And even if it weren't explicitly recorded, it's irrelevant. We're not Muslims who have to derive everything from the Koran.  > Scripture is all that matter as a Christian.  No, it isn't. There is literally nothing in the Bible to support this notion. The Bible explicitly states that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, the Apostle instructs us to follow tradition, and Jesus founded a Church, not a book.  There was no Bible for almost 400 years! According to you, the Church was nothing until almost the 5th century.  > Any other readings mean nothing if not backed by scripture.   This is circular reasoning.  > That wall of text had tons of scripture supporting it.  No, it had tons of context-free and extremely selective prooftexts supporting it.  >To bad you don't want to expand you faith by hearing all sides not just the Catholic indoctrination.  I've probably read far more Protestant literature than you have, and believe it or not, we're not all a bunch of gullible dipshits falling for "indoctrination." What the hell is it with you people who think everybody in the Church is just some slackjawed moron believing everything he hears? Do you have any idea how fucking insulting and condescending that is? And then you wonder why nobody wants to hear about it?  > 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  This proves nothing. It's not about the Bible, which did not exist at the time, it's about the Old Testament, and furthermore, this is the definition of a circular argument.  The fact is, every Catholic belief and practice is attested to in the New Testament and the Ante-Nicene Fathers. None of these ideas you're pushing, particularly the idea that the Bible is this magical Koran that justifies itself, have anything to do with Christianity as practiced at any point between the first and sixteenth century. 
I mean I could, but it's just so wrong, there are too many points to list.  There are two things that make a fastball hard to hit. Speed, location, and movement. We're going to assume two, rather straight fastball pitchers, one that throw's lower 90's, and someone who throws like any pitcher in the Mets rotation. (upper 90s) The only thing separating the success of the two is location.   Speeds are obviously different, and movement is the same. With your idea, the only thing that would change success of the two is speed. So, the slower guy would always have less success than the faster guy, because logically the slower pitcher is easier to hit than the faster pitcher.  This isn't the case however, there are plenty of slower pitchers that have more success with their fastball, than some of the flame throwers in the league.  That's where location comes in. Location can be the difference between a good fastball, and a bad one.  Good location is tough as a pitcher, so not as many pitcher have it, that's why hardly any other 95+ pitchers have had success against their lineup. [SEP] >I mean I could, but it's just so wrong, there are too many points to list.  If I was so wrong, why didn't you just prove me wrong in the beginning to save both of us time? Instead of being condescending about it?  > With your idea, the only thing that would change success of the two is speed  When did I imply this? I never said speed was the only thing that matters, I was arguing the opposite. People are saying that their ability to hit faster speeds doesn't matter, I'm saying that it does and that you can't rely on velocity to beat them. The Mets staff likes to challenge hitters, that's relying on velocity in its purest form.  >This isn't the case however, there are plenty of slower pitchers that have more success with their fastball, than some of the flame throwers in the league. That's where location comes in. Location can be the difference between a good fastball, and a bad one.  I never said anything to the contrary of any of this. I understand pitching, and I never claimed that location itself doesn't matter.  I feel like most of this back and forth has been a misunderstanding of what I've been arguing. Cause I don't disagree with 90% of what you stated at all.  >Good location is tough as a pitcher, so not as many pitcher have it, that's why hardly any other 95+ pitchers have had success against their lineup.  This is the only thing I have been arguing against. Without location data it's ridiculous for me to assert that they can hit 95+ mph fastballs even with good location, but it's not ridiculous to assert they haven't faced well located fastballs? Despite it being rare, there are pitchers that can do it, and the Royals have faced some of those pitchers and are still the best at 95+ mph fastballs.
hE's sampling whole melodies... That ge did not create. You cant say he deserves as much credit as a musician who actually creates everything in their song from scratch.  If an edm producer sampled a whole loop from Deadmau5 they'd ruin their career.  I'm not saying what they make isn't enjoyable to listen too. Just that they aren't in the same caliber as other musicians.   show me a lofi producer who writes their own melodies then chops them and I'll change my tune. [SEP]  > show me a lofi producer who writes their own melodies then chops them and I'll change my tune.  Kareem Riggins does that. He is also a jazz drummer and plays most of his drums on a regular kit.  I don't know if you've spent much time sampling but it isn't as easy as it seems. I often give up and just play the damn thing on guitar/bass/keys because that is easier to me than getting the sample to do what I want it to do in the context of the song (I come from a guitar and bass background so that may have something to do with it).  If you don't or haven't worked in the style then you probably shouldn't talk like you're an authority on the subject. It comes of as condescending and rude.  If you do work in the style and think you can make beats like 9th wonder then do that. make that paper.
Being that I'm late to the party this probably wont get noticed, but regardless, you're right.  Sorry to the PS3 owners who don't get Dawnguard, but fact is that when you get it you'll enjoy it. I remember when Skyrim came out and all of the PS3 owners were complaining that it didn't work. As most people have mentioned the PS3 is hard to work with, and Bethesda wants to get it right for you guys. I'm sorry that you guys can't understand that.   If you guys got Dawnguard when the PC players got it you'd be on here saying how bad Bethesda is that they released a broken game. You have put Bethesda in a terrible situation, either way they look bad. Bethesda isn't EA, yes they accepted money from Microsoft to make an early release for DLC, but fact is this is the Video game industry today. Right or wrong its going to happen.   Stop bashing Bethesda. They're trying and Dawnguard will be released soon for you guys. To all of you PS3 owners that I saw in this thread that are being patient thank you. As a Xbox player it makes me proud to see that some of our Sony counterparts being gracious in this. To those that can't seem to understand that Bethesda is trying go look at games like Mass Effect 3 or Call of Duty and see what companies like EA and Activision are actually doing to proud franchises.   Be proud that companies like Bethesda still exist, they may not always do what we want them too but they gave us great games like Skyrim we should give them time and let them do their work.  [SEP] >I'm sorry that you guys can't understand that.  Sorry, but your whole comment sounds incredibly condescending when you've had the DLC available to you from Day 1.  And most PS3 users on this subreddit are not pissed at Bethesda for the lack of DLC, we're annoyed at Bethesda's lack of communication over the last month regarding the pissed off fans, the DLC, etc.  I have no doubt that the dev team is working hard. I really trust they want to give us a quality game just as bad as we want it. But the PR department sucks and it is just a shitty business decision to not address angry fans, whether you think they should be angry or not. That's not how business works. Your potential customers/investors aren't happy? You release a statement ASAP informing them on what's going on.   Just a simple statement saying "We know you're upset, but we're working on a solution, we'll keep you updated" would be enough to calm 80% of the people who are angry/annoyed.  Yet we have gotten crickets.
If that doesn't work, I hope you know how to telnet and rcon commands so you can recover the bootloader.  [SEP] >If that doesn't work, I hope you know how to telnet and rcon commands so you can recover the bootloader.   And if God forbid, you call for help after 5pm in your time zone, the true blue guy might (if you're lucky) tell you these commands, in a condescending manner of course. He'll probably blame the code too.   If he's playing magic the gathering (instead of some mmorpg) and doesn't have a computer nearby, you're sol until morning.
Thats why you have different POV and different motivations. Most of the westeros are people who does not care about the fact Cersei killed her husband and seated her brother child on the throne. Show me justice in that. Kings landing views everyone as villain as long they are not with them - because Lannisters tricked the people there. Same goes for Rob and Tullys - if you consider Stannis villain they are also villains. All people that want justice for what happened. The only ones who see Stannis as villain are Lannisters supporters, who are basically villains too.   Mar Miri or whatewer wasn't villain either. What she did was to save her people, exact vengeance on those who ransacked her village and killed her people.   Its his nephew and Storm end belong to him. If it wasnt for him, Storm end would not even stand. Ser Cortnay Penrose denied him his own land. Yeah, really neat. That by everything is considered treason. And treason is punishable by dead - by every westeros law. Ask Tyrion and Jof who catapulted Stannis people out of the city.   Ned is good, and thats what brought him down. He offered Cersei to pack her stuff and go. Yeah nice idea. Its like Batman and his constantly returning villains.   I suppose you did not read the books. The most used adjective with Stannis is just.   Stockholm syndrome. What a stupid thing. In that case every loyal servant has Stockholm syndrome. So Septa Morgane, Beric, Neds guard... How Dos was ever kept by him. He only brought him some onions and was impressed how Stannis handled the situation. He could have leaved. He chose to stay, because he liked what he saw there. Stannis did not force him to stay.   So how can a man with such a great common sense and someone who is able to see things how they, are being brainwashed by someone. Yeah that makes sense. No, Davos choose to stay with him. Because he wanted.   So if Stannis is so harsh, inflexible despot. He has the personality and social policy of a Taliban cleric. Then how he was able to get support of mountain clans. Why they are people who are not Rhollor followers in his army. And why they have such a high positions.   I don't care about USA politics. Not interested in them. Dont compare westerosi medieval system inspired by European kingdoms to modern states.   I fascinating how assuming you are about people who like Stannis. I work as PR and in festival organisation.. You definitely do not need social skills for that, I suppose. When did it even occurred to you to compare lack of social skills to Stannis supporter. Interesting theory. I would love to see some logical explanation for it.  [SEP] > I suppose you did not read the books. The most used adjective with Stannis is just.  Don't waste my time with wild, condescending accusations. Just because Stannis thinks he is just, and prates on about it all the time, does not mean he actually is just.  The Mad King probably thought he was just too, as did Viserys and Joffrey. But the fact of the matter is that they're all lunatics with a loose grasp of reality and an inflated sense of entitlement. They all think that they're the "true king", and they're all complete assholes about it. Their notions of "justice" are cruel and self-serving. Though Stannis is the best of that lot, he is still an ass.  > When did it even occurred to you to compare lack of social skills to Stannis supporter. Interesting theory. I would love to see some logical explanation for it.  Myself and other readers are often flummoxed by the fact that Stannis is the most popular character in this community, despite the fact that Stannis is a harsh, inflexible tyrant with dubious judgment and an insufferable personality. The only explanation for his popularity is that readers actually relate to Stannis and his whiny, entitled, uptight, and judgmental demeanor.  > Dont compare westerosi medieval system inspired by European kingdoms to modern states.  Why shouldn't I? Heaven forbid people use literature to critique things. Martin critiques the folly of aristocratic rule by the wealthy by writing a world full of insane and immoral noblemen. I'm sure this is a deliberate choice on his part and is intended to provoke thought as well as entertain.  Don't write don't without an apostrophe.
I was being pretty lazy in my original response (oh, the irony). I do find it surprising that the NYPD doesn't have some ongoing weight/fitness monitoring for active officers. Presumably, cops get health insurance through their union, and could be subjected to early physical examinations. It would be possible, for example, to put cops on desk duty until they reach a healthy weight or pass some kind of yearly physical. It's pretty clear at this point that most Americans (scratch that - most of the world's adult population) does not have the intrinsic motivation to stay fit, so unfortunately, it may have to come down to the city having to force those requirements.  [SEP] I was being lazy as well. When you said --   > It's pretty clear at this point that most Americans (scratch that - most of the world's adult population) does not have the intrinsic motivation to stay fit   That's exactly what I was trying to get across, in a sarcastic, but not condescending manner. I appear to have missed the mark on the second part. :)  
It is open to adjusting and has adjusted slowly, sustainably, over time. It is literally the only successful league this country has ever had. I've been watching European football for nearly 20 years, I've watched plenty of "good football". You don't need to be an expert to know that the level of MLS is below top leagues, no one is pretending it is.   Bottom line is the only way the league gets better and continues to grow is by bringing in more fans. Be a part of building it, or sit on the sidelines.   Support local soccer, instead of turning your nose up to it.  [SEP] > Support local soccer, instead of turning your nose up to it.   Jesus fucking christ, stop with this condescending bullshit notion that I can't call out MLS and still be supportive of US soccer.  In fact, the exact opposite is true. I am a huge supporter of US soccer, and want to see it improve. I also was a product of its ridiculously archaic and poor structure, and don't want to see the next group of young talent get pushed to the side by their European counterparts. Like I alluded to at one point in the last reply, this perhaps is more an issue with the US Soccer Association, however MLS lends itself to this as well, by limiting its teams' abilities to improve themselves, and therefor improve their academies.   Again, my issue is that the league leadership doesn't want to take risks, because the money is good right now. There is financial incentive for them to keep their system in place, and it is coming at the sacrifice of overall quality of play, which ultimately trickles down into youth development.
>What does that make a 3 month old born baby?  Can the three month old respire, and process nutrients without using someone else body?  >How was my reason religious? I am Agnostic.  It's more philosophical, as such many people use their religion as a starting point. You can act as if this isn't the case, but you won't be doing so in good faith.  >Why do you think people that don't adopt automatically can't be Pro Life?  People an hold any belief they want. When their stated belief is in contradiction to their observed behavior we tend to think of it as being hypocritical.  >Where on earth did this come from? Why are you making these more or less Ad Hominem logically fallacious attacks on me?  Again, pro-life beliefs tend to correlate with views against social safety nets. Maybe you are super duper special and believe in both but for the most part these tend to go hand in hand.  [SEP] > Can the three month old respire, and process nutrients without using someone else body?  So do you draw your line in the sand for personhood at respiration using their own power and the ability to process nutrients without using someone else's body?   Baby on a ventilator seems to defeat your first part. As for your second part: Babies can't feed themselves.   They require the use of their caretaker's body to feed them via getting food, preparing it, and feeding it to them.   So the aspect of getting the food to process requires other people.   As for processing nutrients on their own, unborn babies process nutrients on their own.  Sure, the parent is the supplier of the nutrients/food. Just like how a born baby is supplied with nutrients/food.   The baby still has to process and use them within their own body at their own biological discretion.   >It's more philosophical,  Yes. But Philosophy isn't theology.   >as such many people use their religion as a starting point.   Many people relate religion to their starting point. They believe in a "soul" and as such that believe means they think humans are persons at conception.   I do understand what you're saying.   But that isn't relevant. My point isn't based in theology.   >You can act as if this isn't the case, but you won't be doing so in good faith.  When did I say otherwise?  Right, I didn't.   >People can hold any belief they want.   Sure, sure.   >When their stated belief is in contradiction to their observed behavior we tend to think of it as being hypocritical.  And here is where you're just wrong.   Where does a belief in Pro Life state you have to adopt? Adoption is not a required behavior for someone to be considered Pro Life.   Adoption is not inherently Pro Life.  Pro Life people support adoption, yes.  And yes, it's true Pro Life people are very active adopters. But that doesn't mean if you want to be Pro Life you have to adopt.   You are arbitrarily throwing requirements you think Pro Life people should have up. Just because you think people should do this doesn't mean they have to do what you think they should be doing, nor does it make them hypocrites for not doing what you want them to do.   Do I have to go to Gay Rights rallies in order to be a Gay Rights supporter?   By your logic, I have to.   Gay Rights rallies are only an aspect of supporting Gay Rights, and certainly not the whole.  But according to you, you must support every single aspect of something or you don't truly support that thing.   Therefore, anyone that claims to support Gay Rights but has never been to a Gay Rights rally doesn't actually support Gay Rights and is a hypocrite.    >Again, pro-life beliefs tend to correlate with views against social safety nets. Maybe you are super duper special and believe in both but for the most part these tend to go hand in hand.  No no n buddy, hold on a second.   Now this is a different discussion. Now you are condescendingly telling me you know the best way to do everything and that my fiscally conservative way of solving things is wrong.   We're no longer discussing abortion. You are, instead, essentially trying to paint an evil picture of Pro Life people (a la conservatives) by claiming that the liberal way to do things is the One True Way, and that if I don't agree with the One True Way that liberals want, I am a bad evil guy.   To borrow from a comment I posted a while ago:  Most Pro Choice and Pro Life people care about the elderly, the infirm, the poor, and the disabled, the people most affected by "social safety nets."   Are there selfish people who don’t care about others, or are content to use disadvantaged peoples as political props? Of course, and that’s true on both sides of the abortion debate and on both sides of the political divide.    But for the most part, there’s genuine concern for human life on both sides. If you can’t recognize that, you’ve let partisanship totally cloud your ability to understand or empathize with people who disagree with you.   Vice President Mike Pence, in his remarks at the March for Life, said  “You know, life is winning in America. And today is a celebration of that progress that we have made in this cause. You know I’ve long believed that a society can be judged by how we care for its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn.”  That’s a beautiful articulation of both the pro-life movement and political liberalism at their best: advocacy on behalf of those too disadvantaged to advocate for themselves.  So the question isn’t “should old people be allowed to live?” The question isn’t even really “is it my responsibility for ensuring that you have a good quality of life?” The question is “how best do we ensure that the most vulnerable among us are protected?”  And the answers to that problem are often tricky. Social Security does a lot of good, but there are legitimate reasons to believe that our spending is unsustainable. Virtually everyone recognizes that healthcare is important, and that there are major flaws in our healthcare system, but most of the proposed solutions are expensive, untested, and complicated. Education is important, but pouring more money into public education doesn’t always correlate to demonstrate improvements, not as much as improving how things are done. To demand, “you must support my particular plan or else you want people to die” is ridiculous.   This is why the the recently spread quotation from Sr. Chittister is fatuous: she openly assumes that if “you don’t want any tax money to go there,” then you don’t want children to be fed, clothed, etc. This assumes a particular solution to these problems (taxpayer-funded governmental programs), and with it a political ideology. It evinces a grave lack of charity towards those who don’t share her views on the size and scope of federal authority.   Pro-choicers tend to be more liberal, and tend to be more trusting of the government as a solution to these problems. Pro-lifers tend to be less trusting of the government to fix these things — which may be part of the reason that they show more of a proclivity towards volunteering and working towards solutions on their own. But that’s a question about how trusting we should be of big government, or how much we think throwing tax money at a problem solves it, not of how much we love our neighbor.   That’s not to say that the fiscally conservative answer is the right one to any of these questions. It’s only to say that these are the sorts of issue that we should be able to disagree upon civilly, without accusing the other side of not caring about human life. Virtually all of us that we would like (amongst other things) a well-educated, healthy society in which the most vulnerable are taken care of. We just don’t always agree upon how best to get there.   So instead of saying “pro-lifers only care about babies until they’re born,” a more accurate statement might be something like, “although pro-lifers disproportionately give more of their time and money, I don’t see eye-to-eye with many of them on the solutions to certain social ills.” 
Well, while you're pondering that answer, I can assuredly say that I'm sure that the vast majority of this sub is illiterate in every discipline they converse and veritably stupid. [SEP] > Well, while you're pondering that answer, I can assuredly say that I'm sure that the vast majority of this sub is illiterate in every discipline they converse and veritably stupid.  There is an eloquent way of responding to you... It's goes like this... Fuck off! If you have nothing to actually say, then fuck off! Talking about nothing in a condescending way is worse than not knowing what you're talking about. 
I get that you don't like arts criticism when applied to games, but loads of people do. It's also an important part of games maturing as an artform - no other form of arts/entertainment reviews/criticises things as some kind of objective consumerist buyers guide, as if you're buying a new car or refrigerator. Read a film or book review and you'll see. The reason games reviews were like this for a long time is that they (games) used to be a lot simpler, to the extent that if the gameplay made sense, was fun, and the thing ran well, that was an achievement in of itself. Games just have too much personality now, and reviewing them as if you're objectively assessing the success at which something operates mechanically doesn't really make sense. It's pretty telling when you build your argument around words like "product" or "consumer" - words that suggest the purpose of games is to jerk us off as opposed to their purpose being to entertain/surprise us.   I've never read a book review, film or play review that refers to the thing as a "product". (Edit: some games, especially those with a multiplayer focus, are of course 'services', like a bowling alley or paintball range. But this doesn't mean writers cannot comment on the aesthetic of the services, and what that says about us. Again, this is completely natural and normal from an academic perspective for this kind of writing to happen, and to be popular and useful)  But as you say, there are plenty of ways now to judge the content of a game without an editorial layer, like twitch streams. And I get that meaningful arts criticism is maybe a little too academic for you, and you're only in it for the endorphin burst when you land a headshot or pull off a combo. That's fine, but you must understand that there is in fact room on the internet for everything.  Plenty of people want adult, sophisticated editorialising, and plenty of people don't! And the utility of the former is greater for me in deciding what I want to spend my time on because I care about narrative and ideas and concepts more than I care about the FPS at which something runs.  Maybe the editorial is being displaces for YOU - and that's fine. But its arrogant to assume thats the case for everyone. If anything, editorial writing around games is getting more sophisticated, and more stimulating. I never thought Gillen was the best writer - too starry-eyed and superficial. There are much better writers working nowadays. Seems like progress to me.   The tldr of this is that I find it really weird that you're so angry about voices existing which come at games from a more academic place of arts criticism, when you openly admit that there now exist ways for you to get what you want. Neither is in danger of killing off the other because that just isn't how the internet works- the internet isn't one big community. So why go so far as to call a guy writing his thoughts about games a "cancer"? [SEP] Reviews and criticism are separate topics. I'm not sure why you're conflating them. It's especially clear when you say:  >It's pretty telling when you build your argument around words like "product" or "consumer" - words that suggest the purpose of games is to jerk us off as opposed to their purpose being to entertain/surprise us.  A review's purpose is to cover features and bugs with the end goal of giving enough information to a person whether to purchase it. If it makes no such recommendation, it's not a review. All of what you've said about criticism is under the assumption that the reader already has the game or is familiar with it -- that's not at all where I'm coming from. There is an information gap between someone who has played the game (the reviewer) and someone who has considering buying it, and it's the reviewer's job to fill the gap. That's a review.  >I've never read a book review, film or play review that refers to the thing as a "product".   Product is a generic word. Not all games are art, but all games can be reviewed.   >And I get that meaningful arts criticism is maybe a little too academic for you, and you're only in it for the endorphin burst when you land a headshot or pull off a combo.  Given that I don't play FPS or fighting games, this is quite the condescending statement. Nearly everyone who has rushed to Gillen's defense seem to only operate on strawmen.     >Neither is in danger of killing off the other because that just isn't how the internet works-  Actually, it is how it works. Games press sites run off ad revenue, and ad revenue requires clicks. Many sites, ranging from Joystiq to Gamespy to 1UP to IGN have all suffered layoffs as Twitch and Youtube have ascended. Smaller blogs like Critical Distance have cropped up in the meantime, but overall their reach is slim.  In terms of reach, it takes only a minute to check out Steam's curator rankings; you'll find that it's dominated by Youtubers and streamers, not traditional games press sites.   > So why go so far as to call a guy writing his thoughts about games a "cancer"?  Because getting up on a stage and telling game developers to act like histrionic "rock stars" for sound bytes is damaging to the game industry. I don't know why you and others bother dragging me into some petty fight about red herring "what is a review?". It was fairly clear in the last paragraph of my first post, quoting the fruit of this NGJ, that treating indie developers like primadonnas results in "suck my dick, choke on it" headlines ala Phil Fish. I can't count on two hands the amount of times I've read "mature," "progress," and "grow up" today w.r.t. games journalism and every time I just have to laugh.  Turning games coverage into Hollywood is the cancer and I'm absolutely not going to support writers who sit by and laugh at the popcorn.  
>Your being friends with a relatively high-profile engineer really does not make your plans more coherent.  Oh my holy titty fucking christ. Continually harping on the "you have not explained this to my satisfaction" without specific questions is getting old. I am honestly not sure about what part of my plan is not coherent. Honestly. the inability to accurately describe what is inside my mind to others is my single greatest failing as a human being and I readily admit that.   1. Incorporate and prepare for resource allocation.  2. Begin online media campaign to raise awareness and accept resources. 3.Build first facility to demonstrate feasibility of tech and iron out design complications yet to be realized. (this includes the Hughes-001 a scout drone of my design) Which will serve a variety of functions including safety and scientific purposes. 4. Introduce long range drone designs and test feasibility at the now SLE-0001. 5. Optimize agriculture production. (I plan to fly in Ron finley and Carleen Madigan and compensate them for their time) Train the first OFH agriculture specialists and prepare them for exponential growth. 6. Begin deployment of decentralized manufacturing grid. Supporters will receive 3D printers in their home that they can use for free but we can also remotely command to print parts we need. This is crucially essential to building the sheer number of drone chassis that will be needed within a very short amount of time. 7. Strategically build out SLE-0002 SLE-0003 SLE-0004 etc... There is a reason why I have been going around for the past 2 years securing hundreds of acres of land. I plan to fucking use it. 8. Connect SLE's using the long range drones in a metropolitan area. (this may take several years to do the first time) 9. Begin Operation POLR (exponential growth through the path of least resistance) 10. Begin A.I. program.   Do you want me to give you my business plan word for word so you steal it? No thanks.  > Can you honestly look at what you've typed here about the deployment of the Macedonian army and not understand why someone would think you are delusional?  Not if that person is smart enough to understand that historical reference and the significance of the acheivment. Unheard of at the time.  > If your plans really made sense you would be able to convey the gist of them in a way that similarly made sense. Yet you haven't... or were you going to claim again that I'm too stupid to understand it?  Help me to help you Let me just walk you through every single facet of my plan so that you can run to Oprah and declare it your idea. If you have specific questions just ask them and I will try to help you.  >So here you are claiming and claiming again that you and whoever are working on something that will revolutionize everything! while simultaneously shitting all over anyone skeptical of your claims and anything that contradicts you. Please take another moment to think critically about why people have responded to you the way they have.  I am not pitching perpetual motion. Just an overall societal vision of using soon to be common technologies to disrupt industries and establish a new parcel delivery system that generates excessive energy surplus as a by product using less than 10,000 supporters out of 7 billion potential supporters. Culminating in a connected one world automated drone grid. This is why I am waiting for you to have an aha! eureka! moment.   The reason why you believe I am insulting your intelligence is because I have explained this plan countless times and (I would estimate) less than 5% of people get it. And these are really smart people I talk to. So I have developed a callousness to the nay sayers.  I don't have time to explain to you the way I see the world. You are probably not capable of ever getting it. And that is ok.   You would think a human being that have been alive for the rise of cell phones would be more receptive to the possibility of this.  >Perhaps you should combine this thought:  Oh are you a therapist now?   [SEP] > Continually harping on the "you have not explained this to my satisfaction" without specific questions is getting old.  You have explained it "to my satisfaction" for me to realize that it is an incoherent plan, cobbled together by delusions of grandeur and wishful thinking, riddled with holes that are quickly filled with "you're just not smart enough to get it!"  >Incorporate and prepare for resource allocation.  >Begin online media campaign to raise awareness and accept resources.  That sounds a lot like raising capital, something you scoffed at and told me you didn't need. Hm.  > Introduce long range drone designs and test feasibility at the now SLE-0001.  There is definitely a market demand for long range drones, although I suspect nobody is going to give you money for R&D based on what you've proposed so far, because it promises a lot without being very clear about how it's going to get there, and it will start out insanely expensive. Oh, right, this is where you come in and start talking about how markets don't matter. If only that stolen money could just be given to geniuses like you who don't care about a return, the world would be a better place.  > Optimize agriculture production. (I plan to fly in Ron finley and Carleen Madigan and compensate them for their time) Train the first OFH agriculture specialists and prepare them for exponential growth. Begin deployment of decentralized manufacturing grid. Supporters will receive 3D printers in their home that they can use for free but we can also remotely command to print parts we need. This is crucially essential to building the sheer number of drone chassis that will be needed within a very short amount of time. Strategically build out SLE-0002 SLE-0003 SLE-0004 etc... There is a reason why I have been going around for the past 2 years securing hundreds of acres of land. I plan to fucking use it.  So in other words, you're name dropping and making vague promises about how many resources you've already acquired, relying on the scale to sell people on the "wow, that's huge!" factor without actually explaining how you realistically plan to do the things you're claiming. "Optimize agriculture production" - you mean throw money into a fucking pit, because what you are talking about is decades behind being feasibly cost effective.  > Connect SLE's using the long range drones in a metropolitan area. (this may take several years to do the first time) Begin Operation POLR (exponential growth through the path of least resistance) Begin A.I. program.  This is where we clearly enter la-la land, and why I keep referring to your "plan" as incoherent. You're insinuating that by connecting these fucking gargantuan money pits that you won't ever realistically have the resources to get off the ground, it's going to recursively increase the cost efficiency (in energy, since I know you're probably chomping at the bit to scream "it's not about the money!!"), bringing humanity up on the Kardashev scale, after which you plan to use that energy to power the development / free up enough resources to develop strong AI, bringing about the technological singularity... I guess because you think that's the biggest barrier to that happening? Fucking hilarious.  > Do you want me to give you my business plan word for word so you steal it? No thanks.  Hahaha, oh my god, don't flatter yourself. I would love to see your word for word business plan, but not because I'd plan to steal it. Want me to sign an NDA? Hahaha.  > Not if that person is smart enough to understand that historical reference[1] and the significance of the acheivment. Unheard of at the time.  Fucking jesus, this is rich. You really think the problem with my statement was because I didn't understand your reference, don't you?  > Let me just walk you through every single facet of my plan so that you can run to Oprah and declare it your idea. If you have specific questions just ask them and I will try to help you.  This gave me a thorough chuckle.  > I am not pitching perpetual motion. Just an overall societal vision of using soon to be common technologies to disrupt industries and establish a new parcel delivery system that generates excessive energy surplus as a by product using less than 10,000 supporters out of 7 billion potential supporters. Culminating in a connected one world automated drone grid. This is why I am waiting for you to have an aha! eureka! moment.  I think it's definitely possible we're going to see a societal shift like what you're describing, it's just not going to come from a fucking incoherent plan like yours. Ironically, you are ideologically opposed to libertarianism, the most ethical and practical model for getting there, because you think in order to achieve that goal you need to subvert the market by using violence to coerce people into throwing money into your fucking stupid plan. Thankfully, this will never happen, because if it did, the cost would be so immense that it would make you a cartoon villain.  > The reason why you believe I am insulting your intelligence is because I have explained this plan countless times and (I would estimate) less than 5% of people get it. And these are really smart people I talk to. So I have developed a callousness to the nay sayers. I don't have time to explain to you the way I see the world[3] . You are probably not capable of ever getting it. And that is ok.  Maybe your single greatest failing as a human is not in your inability to explain your plans (you actually don't seem too bad at that), but how fucking needlessly condescending you are to people who actually understand what you are talking about, but whom you have assigned an adversarial role in your mind because they disagreed with you. I'm betting this gives you a feedback loop of false confidence, which would explain the bullshit you keep spewing.  >Oh are you a therapist now?  No, just making some casual observations based on what you said.  At least the conversation got interesting enough for me to bother replying to what you said in a way that actually addressed it. Isn't that what you wanted from the get-go?
That's why I said, "If it really bothers you," because it's just the way we are. The people who find our rambling annoying aren't people we should care enough about to let it effect us. [SEP] > The people who find our rambling annoying aren't people we should care enough about to let it effect us.  I find this kind of condescending. As someone who has the same problem, I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to be annoyed by. I sometimes get annoyed by people who ramble on seemingly without a point.  Effective communication is an extremely valuable skill. It's highly beneficial for developing both personal and professional relationships, and thus is an important component to overall life satisfaction. Improving your communication skills should be a high priority for most people. To me it seems like a deficiency I ought to work to correct, not something that you'd be an asshole to be annoyed by. We probably won't be compatible as friends if we can't have a decent conversation without either of us getting annoyed, but it seems like you have a "fuck 'em, they're assholes anyway" attitude about it.
But attractiveness DOES play a role in someone's force of personality, and a rather large one at that. Many qualities, like leadership and persuasiveness, stem from being pleasing to the eyes, at least at the time these traits were learned. Hell, just take a look at photos of most politicians when they were in their 20's. They're typically pretty damn attractive.   The fact is, many people have a natural disposition against ugly people. And if people don't like you, you're going to have trouble leading them or persuading them.  Now, this is obviously not a hard truth, but an ugly character with a high charisma needs something else besides "well they're an ugly dude but they exude leadership" because I and many other players are not going to buy that. Do they have a high intellect? They must be a wonderful speaker. Great wisdom? Their sense of balance and understanding attracts others looking to learn from them. High strength? They lead with their sword and expect others to follow.   Any of these (and many others) are totally believable. However do NOT tell me that I find the NPC with 3 teeth and a face covered in warts to be strangely enticing just because his high Charisma means that he is. [SEP] >However do NOT tell me that I find the NPC with 3 teeth and a face covered in warts to be strangely enticing just because his high Charisma means that he is.  On the contrary I think that's exactly what a high charisma means. There are some people who simply defy logic when it comes to being likeable. The best example I can think of is Canadian politician Jean Chretien. I can't find any pictures of him at 20, as far as I know he was born old, but here's one of the youngest-looking photos I can find (person in the middle.) He's not really attractive, in fact as Wikipedia notes: "Early in his career, Chrétien was described by Dalton Camp as looking like the driver of the getaway car, a condescending assessment which stuck with him, and which was often cited by journalists and others throughout his career, and usually considering his eventual success."  He was also afflicted with a condition that paralyzed half of his face, leaving him looking like this whenever he talked much to the amusement of political cartoonists. He was, for the same reason, not a great speaker. I can't comment on how good his French was, but he spoke English with a heavy accent, and was sometimes mocked in the media as being "The prime minister who was unable to speak either official language."  Despite that, he spent a substantial part of his entire life in politics, and was extremely successful eventually becoming Canada's 5th-longest-serving Prime Minister and leader of one of the strongest Liberal Party dynasties in recent history. He is well-liked to this day, despite the fact that looking objectively at his accomplishments, none are particularly impressive and his leadership was plagued with many scandals, even some that weren't discovered until he had retired. Yet the media mostly continued to love him, as did many people, choosing to basically ignore these facts both at the time and in hindsight. They were reported and discussed, but no one seemed to think them serious at all. There is no logical reason, they were far more serious than other events that have destroyed people's political careers, but obviously those people did not have the political charisma that Jean Chretien did. It allowed people to ignore his faults, despite logic.  He was witty, sure, and intelligent, certainly. But that alone doesn't explain how he was able to do some of the things he was able to do. When a protester confronted him, he grabbed the man in a choke-hold and forced him to the ground, which became known as the Shawinigan Handshake after Chretien's hometown. Any other politician I can think of would have been pilloried by public opinion no matter what justification he gave. For Jean Chretien, it became a joke. He was called the Shawinigan Strangler. Disagree with him, and he will give you the Shawinigan Handshake. I have never seen anything like it in politics.  In summary, obviously Chretien had a decent Int/Wis (and apparently some Str, heh) but none of it was anything spectacular. It was his Charisma that had to be 18 or higher to make those little quips and that little smirk work for him as well as it did. :P
> I find a lot of these games like the Mass Effect series, the Call of Duty series, and other single player games much more simple than Star Citizen. Many of them bound the player in various ways.   This is called having a game. What you're doing in Star Citizen making up stuff to do because it is a vast boring wasteland that you paid 155 million dollars for. It's like spending 2500 dollars on a wooden block and calling it a javelin and then spending your days pretending it's a horse or a rocket ship or a robot or your best friend. And you do this because you have to justify the cost somehow.   > CIG, i think, is bold and imaginative. I still dont know a game where i can:  And you just used a thousand bullet pointed words to describe getting a ship and a gun and shooting people, maybe forming a group if the game doesn't lag out. And ship damage states aren't in yet. Everything just explodes when you take enough damage. This just reeks of padding out the gameplay features. If this was an english paper, you'd be using 15 point font and extra wide margins.   > And this isnt even 3.0 yet with item 2.0 and planets and more ships and cargo and....etc. Item 2.0 means you can have a powerplant go critical and you have a cascade of failures and you could destroy your ship from mismanagement of resources. Not to mention what CIG is aiming for ultimately with 4.0 and beyond.  None of this is in the game. You can say they are planning all this stuff, but it's all dreams until people can play it. Actual people, not a fake sandworm video "played" by staff.   > Lets not forget that you can actually look at and interact with the multi functional displays in each ship.   Yay. Screens. So much fun there.   > And 3.0 is on the horizon.  Is it just me, or does the horizon move back 2 weeks every friday?   > I just dont know any other game where you can do all of that  All the fun stuff you're imagining you're doing? That all exists in other games that don't need to sell expensive pictures of space ships to actually make a game. And they do it way better than Star Citizen. What you're describing is a bunch of crappy modules that are somehow worse than older games that have been released that Chris Roberts has promised he could put together into a functioning game with no loading. He actually believes that he is the first person to think of the idea of making a game that has everything all at the same time. He's just too dumb to know it won't work.   And I know you think that it is really brave of him to venture into territory that big publishers are to smart to go into, but how brave is he when he is risking other peoples money while cutting himself a 6 figure salary? [SEP] sigh  >This is called having a game. What you're doing in Star Citizen making up stuff to do because it is a vast boring wasteland that you paid 155 million dollars for. It's like spending 2500 dollars on a wooden block and calling it a javelin and then spending your days pretending it's a horse or a rocket ship or a robot or your best friend. And you do this because you have to justify the cost somehow.  First off, games come in all shapes and sizes. Star Citizen is proof of that.  Second, you dont make things up because it's boring. You make things up because theyre providing the infrastructure to do exactly that. Not at all like a wasteland, or boring. Then again, i suppose thats all subjective. It sure as hell isnt boring to me. Not a waste land either...not by a long shot.  No it's not "like spending $2500 on a wooden block and calling it a javelin". It's more like seeing a friend with a badass painting and you want to support him/her by donating $45 to their cause. It's another way of saying, "keep doing that awesome shit youre doing". Hell no i dont make up fun scenarios because i have to justify the cost. Thankfully, i dont think of how much i spent every time i boot up the game. I make up scenarios because i enjoy role playing, and again, emergent gameplay is part of what they want the player to experience. Example: In 3.0, there are no pylons and crowds and start/finish lines around that canyon we saw on a recent ATV, but you can bet your bottom dollar that players will park their ships on the edge and watch as other players race through that bad boy. One of many cases where their emergent gameplay pays dividends.  >And you just used a thousand bullet pointed words to describe getting a ship and a gun and shooting people, maybe forming a group if the game doesn't lag out. And ship damage states aren't in yet. Everything just explodes when you take enough damage. This just reeks of padding out the gameplay features. If this was an english paper, you'd be using 15 point font and extra wide margins.  And you just missed my point entirely. That whole series of events wasnt about "getting a ship and a gun and shooting people, maybe forming a group if the game doesn't lag out". It was about the fact that you can do all of that in a single game....hell in a single continuous play session. I have personally limped my lancer back to a repair station with only one wing....so the engine and wing on the other side was completely gone. Not a stretch to believe that you can get both engines taken off if you have someone with surgical precision with the weapons. If that can happen to the freelancer, i figured it could happen to the starfarer. The engines are huge, and would be even easier to shoot off than the lancer's engines. But youre right, i dont know about the starfarer from first hand experience. Still, ive personally experienced losing a whole engine with my lancer. It's not a stretch, no matter how much youd like it to be.  And did you actually count how many words i used? So what if i actually used that many. You asked for my answer twice, so i gave it to you. Ever heard of that saying "be careful what you ask for?" I mean, i really didnt think it was a huge deal, but apparently it was to you. And if this was an english paper, professor, i would expound upon the actual tech that allows all of these actions to be experienced by the player. That was my point for all of that. It wasnt necessarily that you could get a gun and a ship and form a group. It was that doing all of this in a single contiguous play session is rare, and that the tech to allow such play sessions is equally as rare. Again, kudos to CIG, because theyre bold and imaginative visionaries.   >None of this is in the game. You can say they are planning all this stuff, but it's all dreams until people can play it. Actual people, not a fake sandworm video "played" by staff.  sigh  Your powers of perception are frightening. Thats why i said "And this isnt even 3.0 yet with item 2.0 and...". It's also not dreams. This all comes with 3.0, which is the next patch. But i know you know that.  You know, this post really comes across as some practice attempt at some satiric game critic article. Idk it just has that tone about it. I dont fancy being used as your practice dummy. Though, i will say, you need more work. I was not impressed.  >Yay. Screens. So much fun there.  An example of why i was not impressed. Keep at it, broham. But where's another game that does this? Found one? Now do they do everything else that CIG has put into their pre alpha game? Go ahead..ill wait...  >Is it just me, or does the horizon move back 2 weeks every friday?  No not every friday. But this shallow comment lets me know you dont have a job that deals with schedules and producing complex products for (as your post points out) finicky customers. It's not easy to be an engineer. It's really not easy to create something like SC. Thats why it feels so damn good when you do either one.  >All the fun stuff you're imagining you're doing? That all exists in other games that don't need to sell expensive pictures of space ships to actually make a game. And they do it way better than Star Citizen. What you're describing is a bunch of crappy modules that are somehow worse than older games that have been released that Chris Roberts has promised he could put together into a functioning game with no loading. He actually believes that he is the first person to think of the idea of making a game that has everything all at the same time. He's just too dumb to know it won't work.  Thats the biggest travesty the current gaming market has created. You cant use your imagination anymore. More than that, you get pissed when youre given the opportunity. Pff.. So what games do they exist in? What are the other games? List them. Im serious. Ill play those games too. Where are they?   But amidst all of your naysaying, he is doing it! This game is slowly, but surely coming together. And again, what games are you talking about that matches, and even bests CIG's Star Citizen? Yea, send me that list.  "He actually believes that he is the first person to think of the idea of making a game that has everything all at the same time."  Not that he was the first to have the idea, but he is the first to attempt it in this magnitude. Thats why he and CIG have raised $155 million. Thats why it's the most crowd funded kickstarter IN THE WORLD....and not by a small margin. 2nd place is like $20 million or something....look it up. I wont waste the energy of searching and linking it here for you.   "He's just too dumb to know it won't work."  Nah youre just too negative to see that it is working.  >And I know you think that it is really brave of him to venture into territory that big publishers are to smart to go into, but how brave is he when he is risking other peoples money while cutting himself a 6 figure salary?  Where is the excel spreadsheet showing his monthly income and how he takes it out of SC coffers? No the publishers arent necessarily smart. You mistake savvy choices for fear. Were people in 1969 making safe choices by not being the first people on the moon? That shit was dangerous as fuck, but look at where it got us. No guts, no glory.  Yea, your post was condescending as fuck. Starting to argue and shit when i just chose to give you my opinion after you asked for it twice. Yea you can disagree, but leave all that cheap sarcasm at home. Yea you can express dislike, but dont talk down to me for having my opinion. Your reply came across as some lack-luster attempt at a sarcasm article's tone on the internet that is begging for clicks so they can get paid. Waste time replying to my comment if you like, but you wont be getting a reply from me in this thread again. And if this really was you and how you chose to reply, you suck as a person. Either way, you should probably go back to the drawing board and have another go. 
>Don't play dumb, you know very well that you said it in relation to my views.  By my honor, trust me when I say that I didn't. No joke or anything. I don't accuse someone of racism as a trump card. (Again, being serious here)  >along with the ability to spell  Freundchen, wir können das hier auch gerne in meiner Sprache regeln. Mal sehen wie viele Tippfehler du dann machst. Wat' denkste, desch is ne fehre idä, gell?  >Ah well, too late to cry over that.  You know that the idea of making these rights universal was, in part, to prevent any cases of innovents being stripped of their rights, right? It's the same reasoning for why we don't have a death penalty anymore.  >"refugees"  Well, would you look at that.  >I just ignored it  Sure. Easy to say now, whether true or not.  >But hey, if it makes you feel more clever, who am I to stop you from assuming it went over my head.  Well, given that you seem to thunk that guilt is an intrinsic part of german culture (even as a joke, it's a pisspoor one) the same way overt patriotism is in the US, and in respect to your views on human rights being about as dated as your nations political system, i just can't assume that you would understand... anything really. [SEP] >I don't accuse someone of racism as a trump card. Sure. Easy to say now, whether true or not.  Well you seemed pretty condescending regarding "reading comprehension" and "things going over my head", while I refrained from similar such implications until now, even though it would've been all to easy to do so. On a separate note,  >Wat' denkste, desch is ne fehre idä, gell  Is this Bayrisch? What is the exact Hochdeutsch equivalent, is it "das ist eine feine Idee, geil?"  >to prevent any cases of innovents being stripped of their rights, right? Yes. Although considering where our discussion started, I don't think "innocent" would be the right term to apply to the person (ie murderer) whose "rights" I don't mind being denied, right?  I think it's you who doesn't understand much of anything. :) It's why the AfD is the largest opposition party. It's why millions voted for Salvini and now the Sweden Democrats. Sure, call them all racist, that will make them all go away and you can pretend you're living kumbaya with all the Muslim migrants, who are extremely excited to share in a culture where women wear what they want, people eat sausage and drink beer and mock religion :)  As an aside, it wasn't a joke about the culture of guilt that I think pervades German society. If you look at Austria, they essentially washed themselves of all responsibility after the war by basically saying "Hey, we were Hitler's first victims, not first collaborators so please leave us alone and occupy Germany for the next 45 years". Even though it took the BRD more than 20 years after the war to start some serious introspection, the Austrians never really did it. Personally, I always respected Germany and looked down on Austria for that. Austria had fully "mitgemacht" as you would say. The flip side (for me) is that Austria didn't feel the same sense of guilt in the last few years when there were people claiming to be refugees streaming in (let's ignore for now the irony that many of these "refugees" are some of the biggest anti-Semites in existence today).  It could be that, or it could be the fact that Austria is much more rural and less open, other than Vienna. Unlike Germany where things aren't centered around Berlin, you also have other big centers like Munich, Hamburg etc. What do you think (serious, non-condescending question)? 
lol greenhorn...  you will learn one day that the shit she says and the shit she means are not always the same.  all I was saying is that regardless of how pragmatic she is, society expects people to act a certain way.  if she tells her friends/family/whoever that you asked her to marry her over gchat - people will think it's retarded.  I mean think how fucking retarded your logic is...  you are willing to do something (marriage) that is strictly a cultural thing, yet at the same time you find it horrible that someone would expect you to follow typical culture bias when doing said thing...  think about that for a second...  I mean even you yourself said, it was more of a convenience thing than a proposal.  that's what I was saying...you are half assing...if you are gonna get married, do it right. If not, then why bother doing it at all? [SEP] >you will learn one day that the shit she says and the shit she means are not always the same.  Oh cool, you're a sexist in addition to being condescending and arrogant.  >you are willing to do something (marriage) that is strictly a cultural thing, yet at the same time you find it horrible that someone would expect you to follow typical culture bias when doing said thing... think about that for a second...  Indeed, how dare I decide to take part in something attached to my societal culture without following 100% of the norms involved no matter how archaic or silly they may be. It's impossible to do anything related to culture without following tradition completely, all of the time. Amazing.  >that's what I was saying...you are half assing...if you are gonna get married, do it right. If not, then why bother doing it at all?  I already did it right. I live with my wife and we have an awesome relationship.
>Socrates taught about generic philosophy and ethics, and not specific a theology or world view. I do respect him for his understanding and teachings, but they are not specific about a world view.  What is a worldview, and what is it about teaching a worldview that makes one superior? Also, out of curiosity, how much Socrates have you actually read?  >Siddhartha's was also a respectable person. I would not discount Hinduism due to his character at all. However, I feel there are a lot of other reasons to discount Hinduism. And although I think he was respectable, I do not personally find his life astonishing.  Let's get something straight: Siddhartha was born a Hindu, but is revered as the founder of Buddhism. So, to my original point, please explain why Jesus is more compelling than Siddhartha.  Second, please explain what reasons there are to discount Hinduism that aren't also reasons to discount Christianity.  You responded to /u/Dorago1991 on this point, bringing up three problems you have with Hinduism. I'll get to your first problem with it in a bit, but your second and third objections to Hinduism aren't fairly compelling. All you say is that you don't like the consequences of Hindu teachings. That's fine, I don't like the things you pointed out, either. But things that are true can have consequences we don't like. In other words, the fact that a religion leads to consequences we'd rather avoid isn't in and of itself evidence that the religion isn't true.  >If God is real and wants to communicate with humanity, why would he start at an arbitrary time.  This is a ridiculous argument. As /u/Dorago1991 already pointed out, how is 2,000 years ago less arbitrary than any other time? Your response to him was that it's possible that Judaism has always existed in some form or another. That's pure speculation on your part. There is no evidence of anything resembling Judaism before about three thousand years ago:  http   Besides, even if we agree that Judaism is the most ancient religion, that doesn't explain how it isn't arbitrary for god to decide to send Jesus down two thousand years ago rather than three or one thousand years ago, or last Tuesday, or at any other time. If god is real and wants to provide a mechanism for the forgiveness of our sins, why start at an arbitrary time?  Hinduism, on the other hand, appears to have much older origins:  http #History  Zorastrianism also appears to predate Judaism:  http #Origins  And beyond that, we've unearthed evidence of any number of other ancient religions in various regions throughout the world, many of which predate Judaism. That's not surprising given that human history spans hundreds of thousands of years. And that just leads back to my last point: why wouldn't god care about forgiving the sins of the billions of people that lived before Jesus came to Earth?  >You probably mean that certain beliefs that certain groups within Christianity hold are inconsistent with both logic and science (mostly to do with young earth creationism). These are not core beliefs of Christianity, and I do not hold to them. If there are other examples you mean, I would be happy to address them specifically.  Would you agree that the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus as atonement for our sins is a core belief of Christianity? Because, even if we assume that god and resurrection are possible, the fundamental Christian story is absurd. It involves god sacrificing himself to himself in order to appease himself for our violations of rules he himself wrote and that he himself is solely responsible for enforcing. And let's not forget that the god in the story determined all the initial conditions and the rules by which they would play out.  The entire story, at its very core, defies logic.  >we never discuss moral law or God's passion for social justice, and its relationship to our present day.  God's passion for social justice? Like all the times that he condemns slavery? Or all the times that he makes it clear that a person's ethnic or family heritage is of no consequence?  Oh, wait. God doesn't do any of those things. In fact, he tacitly approves of slavery and directly orders genocide.   Where in these stories do you see god's "passion for social justice"? [SEP] >What is a worldview, and what is it about teaching a worldview that makes one superior? Also, out of curiosity, how much Socrates have you actually read?  A worldview is how one views the mechanics of the world and how it fundamentally works. A point of view per se. Most religions are worldviews.   Nothing about teaching a worldview makes it superior, but worldviews are essentially the topic of our conversation, so Socrates (not really pushing a worldview) is not very relevant to our conversation.  Socrates' teachings are prevalent in western education. He didn't write texts himself, so essentially nobody has "read Socrates".  >Let's get something straight: Siddhartha was born a Hindu, but is revered as the founder of Buddhism.  That's true. I can't believe I mixed that up. Especially after studying it for so long. It has been a couple decades though since I studied it in detail, so you will have to forgive me.  >So, to my original point, please explain why Jesus is more compelling than Siddhartha.  Buddhism does have a lot of similar elements to Hinduism, so many of the same criticisms apply. My main criticism is that it is so vague. It is more like "guidelines for life", rather than an actual functioning worldview. My other criticism is that it encourages one not to open yourself up to pain, which also includes loving others. My best friend's family is Buddhist, and he complains about them being very stingy with their love, for fear of the potential pain that necessarily accompanies love.  As for Siddhartha's compelling nature compared to Jesus. There was story about a young woman who's father died (which I will probably butcher), and asked Siddhartha to bring him back to life. Siddhartha replied by saying in order to do it, he needed a piece of wood from a house that has never seen death. The woman was eager to fulfill his request and went searching. Many days later, she came back saddened. She said every house in the village has seen death. Siddhartha comforted her, and reminded her that death was a part of the cycle of life.  In contrast, when a man told Jesus about his daughter who had dies, Jesus went to his house and brought her back to life. Big difference.  >All you say is that you don't like the consequences of Hindu teachings. That's fine, I don't like the things you pointed out, either. But things that are true can have consequences we don't like. In other words, the fact that a religion leads to consequences we'd rather avoid isn't in and of itself evidence that the religion isn't true.  Well, I can say that I wouldn't follow it. Many people criticize the Old Testament because it permits slavery. However, it definitely does not encourage or require slavery in general. If it did, I would say that I don't want to follow that way, even if it is true.  >This is a ridiculous argument. As /u/Dorago1991 already pointed out, how is 2,000 years ago less arbitrary than any other time?   Who said anything about 2000 years ago. That is simply when one event (definitely not the first) happened. See my response to Dorago1991.  >That's pure speculation on your part. There is no evidence of anything resembling Judaism before about three thousand years ago:  http   That is not speculation, it is based on a lot of research. Your link only applies to Judaism as an organized religion, and religion existed long before it was organized. Like I told Dorago1991, I think that the God of Judeo-Christianity was worshiped as the mountain god or the sky god through antiquity, alongside the earth mother from the beginning of religion in humanity.  >Hinduism, on the other hand, appears to have much older origins:  http #History  Again, this only pertains to organized religion. And Hinduism is easier to find ancient pieces of, because of its nature as a piecemeal religion that has millions of parts, and discounts practically nothing.  >Zorastrianism also appears to predate Judaism:  http #Origins  Incorrect, Zoraster was a man who lived circa 1,000 BCE, and the religion became formalized around the 6th century BCE. The part you quoted only referred to the context that Zoroaster came out of.  >And beyond that, we've unearthed evidence of any number of other ancient religions in various regions throughout the world, many of which predate Judaism. That's not surprising given that human history spans hundreds of thousands of years.  That's because you didn't understand my claim. I never claimed that Judaism was the first organized religion.  >and that just leads back to my last point: why wouldn't god care about forgiving the sins of the billions of people that lived before Jesus came to Earth?  Who said anything about that? I think most Christians believe that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to forgive people that came before him as well. It doesn't just apply to people who came after him.  >Would you agree that the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus as atonement for our sins is a core belief of Christianity?  Yes, I didn't say that miracles are impossible, or that the supernatural does not exist. I think these possibilities are well within the capabilities of science and logic to rest beside.  >It involves god sacrificing himself to himself in order to appease himself for our violations of rules he himself wrote and that he himself is solely responsible for enforcing.  This is among the stupidest of /r/atheism's memes. Please don't repeat them in an honest conversation, as they just make you seem like you are in Jr. High. We do not need forgiveness because God was angry with us, we needed to be cleaned because God cannot tolerate evil. To say he ought to tolerate evil (thus changing the initial condition) is just a bad suggestion IMHO.  >God's passion for social justice? Like all the times that he condemns slavery?Or all the times that he makes it clear that a person's ethnic or family heritage is of no consequence?  People love to take things out of context, and pretend that the world was always like the first world countries today. I think it is a delusion to think that God should have snapped his fingers and make a rough ancient world into a perfect place.  As far as equality goes, the Bible says many times that everyone is the same in God's eyes, and that every nation is judged by God, and that all are represented in Heaven.  If anyone has ever actually read the Old Testament (besides the brief excerpts /r/atheism loves to point out), they would see that half of it is about prophets proclaiming that the people need to feed the hungry, protect the weak and the widow, and serve the poor. This was also central to Jesus' message. Of course, we never talk about this stuff. Let's talk about one war which ended in enslaving the enemies (which would have simply been killed otherwise) instead.  >Oh, wait. God doesn't do any of those things. In fact, he tacitly approves of slavery and directly orders genocide. Where in these stories do you see god's "passion for social justice"?  Your condescending tone does not become an honest conversation. I'm debating whether or not to keep replying to your rude messages. If you want to debate like adults, I'll be happy to do so, but I expect you to stop the insults. Otherwise, I am just as happy to let you talk to yourself.
How is this needs an explanation? NT says he shouldn't be alienating people who disagree but find ways to persuade them, RD says that it's better not to bother, they can just fuck off [SEP] >RD says that it's better not to bother, they can just fuck off  Which might ring true to his character if he hadn't made his name over the past decade evangelizing for his form of atheism. He affects a stoic, superior sort of aloofness regarding what other poor, misguided souls choose to believe, but it is, very much, an affectation; he obviously cares a great deal what other people believe, which is why he breathes such vitriol. (And why he wrote an entire fucking book on the subject.)   All that might make him a rather good patron saint for the modern atheist community, but it doesn't make him a particularly good educator, and it makes him an even worse philosopher. Too often he just sounds petulant and silly, which doesn't fit someone so intelligent. I wish he would either stick to science, where he clearly has a great deal to contribute, or get serious about learning his philosophy. As it stands, when he moonlights in the latter discipline his arguments tend to be about as well-informed and constructed as any freshman just out of their introductory philosophy course and thus, clearly, overqualified to misunderstand a bit of Nietzsche and prove there is no god.   I don't expect he'll ever do that, of course, both because I think he's too arrogant, and because to make truly interesting arguments against religion in general and Western Christianity in particular he would first have to trudge through a whole lot of theodicy and exegesis and broader theology, any and all of which he's thus far casually discarded as unworthy of serious consideration. Which, of course, they are, from a scientific standpoint. But if you want to have a serious philosophical discussion about religion you have to engage these things, and Dawkins evinces about as much knowledge of Biblical exegesis as the average commenter on /r/atheism; lots of helpfully-aggregated passages culled from the SAB and elsewhere, but almost nothing in the way of substantive commentary. The irony is that most of the questions he raises have been outstanding in theology for many centuries, and you'll find that a lot of religious people are happy to talk about them. They just don't like being callously insulted and condescended to.
Evolution is not intelligent! It is RANDOM! What is truly amazing is why an omnipotent super-ghost would make life so complex. If Mr. Ghost was so smart why wouldn't he make it simple? [SEP] >If Mr. Ghost was so smart why wouldn't he make it simple?  That's a really stupid, condescending argument. You're talking about a creature that supposedly created everything, but it has apparently escaped your 'reason' that if this were the case, that creature would be so much more vastly complex than humans, creating us might very well be like us creating the most remedial of medicines. I don't believe in a god, but that's just such an inherently specious argument I couldn't let it slide.
Let's pretend that there's a european country which murders white lgbts for being lgbt and they donate money to the clinton foundation. You'd be ok if hillary accepted money from them even if they were murdering lgbts who are white?  Speaking of the corrupt clinton foundation:  http   Trump hijacked the republican machinery to get the nomination since the dnc was going to rig the primaries for hillary. Running not as a democrat and not as a 3rd party candidate were smart moves by Trump. The wikileaks email showed that the democratic primary was rigged for hillary which is why top level dnc people had to quit after the leaks and which is why debbie wasserman quit, only for her to join the clinton campaign right after. Here's debbie saying the dnc is not biased while here's corrupt debbie admitting to helping hillary win.  http  This is precisely why bernie voters are not going for hillary. At least the RNC didn't rig their primary unlike the dnc. Trump is only aligning himself with santorum and pence to help him get their voters to vote for him. Trump comes across as someone who doesn't care about lgbt marriage. He even stated caitlyn jenner kardashian can use trump tower toilets. Lgbt issues are pretty much irrelevant this election. This is the people vs. the establishment (democrat, republican, lying, mainstream media) election which explains why this is the trump election.   >Awww  I'd appreciate talking about things we disagree with politically minus any condescension. I share my opinions and I read other opinions without the need to attack people.  [SEP] > Let's pretend that there's a european country which murders white lgbts for being lgbt and they donate money to the clinton foundation. You'd be ok if hillary accepted money from them even if they were murdering lgbts who are white?  To be used for charitable purposes (supposedly)? I'd have no problem with that. If Hitler himself gave me a $20 bill I wouldn't burn it because it came from an icky person. What matters is how the money is spent.  >Speaking of the corrupt clinton foundation  off topic.  >Trump hijacked the republican machinery to get the nomination since the dnc was going to rig the primaries for hillary. Running not as a democrat and not as a 3rd party candidate were smart moves by Trump.  Also because he knows how to appeal to homophobic racist bigots. Surprisingly well...  >The wikileaks email showed that the democratic primary was rigged for hillary which is why top level dnc people had to quit after the leaks and which is why debbie wasserman quit, only for her to join the clinton campaign right after.  Yes and it infuriates me to no end how she treated Sanders and progressives all throughout her campaign. She treated us like shit. I'll vote for her on November 8th, and on November 9th I'll kick off my "Ditch the Bitch 2020" campaign. Fuck her. We need an actual progressive.  >This is precisely why bernie voters are not going for hillary.  All 8-10% of them?  >Trump is only aligning himself with santorum and pence to help him get their voters to vote for him.  Why though? If Trump is so liberal, if Trump is so LGBT friendly, why hasn't he been more vocal about it? And if he is actually an LGBT supporter, why is he openly lying to America about his intentions? I thought he was the honest candidate.  >Trump comes across as someone who doesn't care about reversing lgbt marriage.  mmhm  >He's even stated caitlyn jenner kardashian can use trump tower toilets.  Yeah, I made a post about that on the_donald, check my most upvoted submissions. Doesn't mean he won't try to reverse obergefell, which is the real fear.  >Lgbt issues are pretty much irrelevant this election.  Welp. There it is folks.   If they're irrelevant to you, fine. Everyone's different. To me, they're extremely relevant. Trump sounds like someone who in the BEST CASE SCENARIO will leave lgbt rights alone. Clinton, on the other hand, in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, will do nothing to progress them.  >lying   http   >I'd appreciate talking about things we disagree with politically minus any condescension.  I simply responded with condescension because your approach to this topic was extremely condescending.
>You're pretty dead set on dismissing every potential bad thing about XV.  No, just things I do not consider bad. I have plenty of gripes. Every game has problems.  >We saw Iedolus constantly make his own decisions with zero manipulation. We honestly have no proof that he was being manipulated, other than that Ardyn said so.  No, you saw him make decisions. Yeah, Ardyn just lied about doing that and rolled the dice to luckily pick the Empire apart and introduce them to the twisted magic and technology that tainted their Empire.   It seems you're dead set on creating bad things out of thin fucking air about XV.   >You never find out what Gladiolus did in his away time.  Not an example of the game being unfinished. May want to flesh it out for the DLC or leave it ambiguous. Not proof of it being unfinished. A shit way to grab extra money? That can be argued. Does not equal the game being unfinished.  >Outside of the mines in Niflheim you get to see a sprawling city with cars driving as well as the land covered in snow and desert mere miles apart, and yet you don't get to walk through it.  They explain, quite clearly, why the seasons are so closely knit together. Not proof of an unfinished game, like, at all. "You don't get to walk through it." That means the game is unfinished? Hahahaha. You're killing me.  >The general Ignis had in custody just miraculously escaped and you never heard from him again.  This is flat-out wrong. He appears at one of the bases later and you can take him down. Grasping. At. Fucking. Straws.  >You get to see the huge empire castle and when you get in it's about 2 hours of hallways.  Not proof of an unfinished game, like any of this bullshit would be. They made the latter portion of the story linear to focus the story.  >The daemon that Iedolus turned into isn't even unique.  This... This is... You have to be trolling. You must be.  >Why was Ravus killed? How did he die? Why was he at where he was at? We'll never know. Why did have letters he wrote to SOMEONE ELSE ages ago with him when he died?  He was sentenced to be executed by the Empire for treason. Another thing the game tells you. He could have been gathering possessions to attempt an escape. Now you want locations of letters fleshed out? Ugly, ugly criticism.  >What's the background between Ifrit and Ardyn?  Ardyn summons daemons to take control over Eos and the one Astral that was left wandering when Noctis meditates in the crystal for years hates humanity and that goal aligns with Ardyn's distaste for humanity. Noctis showcased you must pass trials with the Astrals for their favor and, seeing as how Ardyn has similar abilities, perhaps passed that trial or didn't even have to because of Ifrit's disdain towards humans.   >Multiple things from past trailers never made it in.  This is also not evidence of an unfinished game. This game went through SOOOOOOOO many changes during it's development. They just changed their mind about including certain things.  >What happened to protecting Leviathan from the empire?  >How did Noctis get on Angel Rock Island? Why is the place he's in called a Stone Prison that he can just leave quite easily? Why was the boat there with him? Does that mean he went there on his own, and if so then why?  Noctis was likely transported there by Bahamut as an isolated, safe location to require his bearings for the coming battles. These are beings that can appear when called anywhere on Eos and can fly. They're astrals. Godlike. Y'know?  He can leave it easily because it is so clearly, clearly abandoned. The prison is no longer in use so he gets up and walks the fuck out.  >I'm not trying to get a conclusion as to how he has any magic at all. I'm not looking for answers as to why he can put up a fight against Noctis. Bending time, however, is a heinously big deal. The problem with us thinking of it on our own, is then where does he get the power from? The gods have forsaken him, so he gets zero powers from them. Daemons explains things to an extent (however if he harnesses the power of Daemons then how can he be so close to the crystal like it's nothing, when regular Daemons don't even dare get close?), but what daemon demonstrating time freezing abilities and making someone look and sound like someone else?  Ardyn isn't a Daemon, he is Accursed. He wasn't just cursed with immortality. You're taking everything way too literally, ffs. It obviously gave him a slew of abilities, plus he has the Armiger weapons, seeing as he was a King of Lucis. He has also had thousands of years to hone spells and magic. It's not rocket science.  After discussing this with someone else in this thread, Ardyn doesn't stop time. He messes with Noctis' head. The whole time he is talking on the train, it is actually Prompto. He is calling him "dude" and doesn't know what he is talking about. He even says he is "causing a scene," which cannot happen if time is stopped. Even if you say, "Oh, it was just stopped for Noct" then how did he cause a scene? If just for Noct and Prompto, why did Prompto say a scene was happening? It's trickery.  Noctis is emotional, confused, and upset. Ardyn takes advantage of this and plays a trick on Noctis utilizing magic. Also, he is not a regular guy. He's an immortal.  >I keep hearing "created", but that's not how I understood it and I don't know how people leapt to this conclusion. Prompto was born in Niflheim, and merely has the same markings as the MT soldiers. That doesn't mean he was a test tube baby, it means the MT soldiers used to be people. He also didn't know any of this until after he was captured, and wouldn't have a further understanding of Magitek technology because of it.  First off, it's a codeprint. Not a marking.  Uh, found out after he was captured? Quoting Prompto, "It's not exactly something you tell people growing up in Lucis." You really didn't pay attention, did you?  Also, who said test tube? Just "created." Verstael developed tech to make MTs. Whether it's out of humans already born or not, they were created to be MTs. They used to be people, as you said, but were changed into something else, creating something new. Something usually considered non-human. The MT codeprint is put on after the process of making Magitek soldiers/slaves/rabbits/whatever.  >He doesn't have to know what he did. He just knows that Ardyn went from being just an evil Chancellor to magic time bender and illusion creator, and yet didn't manage to explain it to Noctis that he was seeing illusions. The greatest issue with Ardyn here isn't that he has powers, but that he literally didn't even demonstrate a single ounce of magic before this scene, and suddenly decided to go full force, EVEN THOUGH his goal was to deal with Noctis AFTER he got power. And why does he even want to do this? All we are told is that he just wants to give a giant "fuck you" to the gods.  He went full force? I'd say that came closer to the end, when he starting flying around with Noctis as they dueled with their respective Armigers, not by fucking with him via illusions.  Just illusion creator, at that point.   Also, now he has to have a certain TIME to demonstrate what he is capable of? You want to dislike this game. Too much of this supposed "criticism" is either wrong, desperate, or just utterly lacking in any realistic commentary.   No, we aren't just told he wants to say "fuck you" to the Gods. Dude... did you play this game? Good lord.  I'm done. You'll weasel word your way out of anything and a discussion cannot be had that way. Say what you want. [SEP] > Yeah, Ardyn just lied  You misunderstand. Of course he didn't lie. The problem is that nothing in the game would back it up. There's no evidence. It's only believable because you know that's what the developers intended, otherwise it isn't believable.  > May want to flesh it out for the DLC or leave it ambiguous.  Leaving out what should be in the game to make DLC still means it's unfinished. If we can't even determine FOR SURE that's what the DLC even is, it's really hard to argue that it's not just missing from the game. I believe they left it out because it hadn't been made yet.  > Hahahaha. You're killing me.  Not an argument. You're quite condescending you know? And on what basis do you have to feel so superior?  > Grasping. At. Fucking. Straws.  Do you find out how he escaped? Also so condescending.  > They made the latter portion of the story linear to focus the story.  TWO HOURS of hallways where you're forced to walk slowly and listen to a pieced together monologue.  > This... This is... You have to be trolling. You must be.  It just isn't fulfilling. And you're condescending.  > He was sentenced to be executed by the Empire for treason.  I don't remember that being Ravus, but you could be right. Why would this execution take place in the daemon lab? Why would those letters be in his possession regardless? This could have easily been a note to Noct rather than letters to his sister. It would have made a whole lot more sense if he had letters from his sister on his person, which could have described the same details.  > perhaps passed that trial or didn't even have to because of Ifrit's disdain towards humans.  Sound reasoning. Why wasn't it in the game if true? If not true, then why isn't the proper explanation in the game?  > They just changed their mind about including certain things.  The problem is what that resulted in.  > likely  The problem is that this is something you've inferred. I'm not searching for your answers. I'm searching for answers from the game. It's simple for something to be left out partially if the hint of it exists in the game, but there's not even a hint for the answer you've reached. You've simply filled in a blank with what you think is reasonable. To end with, your answer is flawed: Did he stay on the island for 10 years with no food? Obviously he hasn't been on that island for 10 years, and so what was he doing there? The easiest answer here is that he was in that astral plane for 10 years that he went to when sucked into the crystal, and simply didn't need food and so his body didn't decay and his clothes were hardly damaged. But then that begs the question, why was he on the island?  > He messes with Noctis' head.  You realize that Prompto addresses the weird things that are going on, while they're going on, before Noctis realizes that "Ardyn" is there? Yes, he stopped time, likely for all but those who hold the power of the crystal.  > He has also had thousands of years to hone spells and magic.  I sure wouldn't be complaining if they explained it away by magic. The issue is that the explanation isn't magic. The game tells you that he exploits a rift in time. If they brought it up as something he figured out how to do, I'd nag a bit less about this, but they don't even care to address it.  > I'm done. You'll weasel word your way out of anything and a discussion cannot be had that way.   Sounds good to me. You've been nothing but condescending.
Why has no one learned from Apple and Google? The only two companies to be successful in both the mobile space and the desktop in the last few years. Both of them have two completely OS's for mobile and the desktop. They are updated on different schedules and are managed by different teams. This, despite the fact they both contain the same core components.  Shuttleworth (and others in the Linux world) need to realize that different devices can have wildly different usage parameters. I don't want a mobile OS on my desktop nor a desktop OS on my phone. And if you try to do both you end up as a Jack of all trades and a master of none.  The only DE that comes close to doing both is KDE and that's only because of the breadth of configuration options. Canonical has repeatedly resisted efforts at greater configuration. And despite KDE's superior configuration options, it still has no options for the 10 foot interface that works best with media center tv's.  Shuttleworth and Canonical have repeatedly shown a desire to ignore what is already working and focus on flashy things (global search in the Dash) that don't really improve the user's experience or Unity's usability. The lack of configuration options for the Dash is just one glaring example of bad UI design.  Canonical seems to be charging forward with ideas and ignoring even the non-crazy opinions (like mine are sometimes). It's worrisome. [SEP] >The only two companies to be successful in both the mobile space and the desktop in the last few years.  It took me a while to even realize what you meant about google. Saying ChromeOS is successful is being far too kind. Almost nobody actually likes it. It's an operating system that's either given as a condescending gift which amounts to a suggestion of assumed stupidity or something people buy without doing much research. Hell, even within google they're pretty much gag gifts to interns. 
> you've been abrasive from the start  By "abrasive", you mean I disagreed with you. Disagreement need not imply abrasiveness.  > I notice you've not included any citations  Perhaps this will help. Most of this will appear to confirm your beliefs, until you get to the last paragraph. That last paragraph is uber important for understanding why Salafism is simply wrong.   http   > Are you now implying that there is no reliance on scholarly interpretation among Sunnis?  scholarly interpretation is optional in sunni  [SEP] >By "abrasive", you mean I disagreed with you.  No, I mean you were abrasive. Even after you figured out that I didn't say anything close to what you first presumed, you are still abrasive.  >Let me give you the benefit of the doubt here. It sounds like you might be saying that you've used the word "Qur'anist" without actually knowing what the word means.  I don't need the "benefit" of your doubt, and I know full well what a Qur'anist is.   >Sounds like you have absolutely no idea what Islam or Muslims are about apart from what you've probably learned either from a Salafi website or from alt-right website.  Even well after you discovered that you were 100% wrong, you continue with this type of behavior, rather than admitting that you fucked up and apologizing.  You really don't think you've been abrasive?  >why Salafism is simply wrong  Here we go again with your strawman. I've never brought up Salafism, nor does it have anything to do with anything that I've said, ever.  This entire conversation has not only been you arguing against statements that I never made, but doing so in a condescending manner with a shitty attitude.  >scholarly interpretation is optional in sunni  Optional does not mean disused. To be technical, Hadiths are optional as well, but that doesn't serve to alleviate their importance.  Again, you're attempting to argue simply for the sake of argument.
We did. I never disagreed with that. You're indeed motivated by ethics. How many fencesitters do you represent when you say you're motivated by "ethics" though?  "People laugh at you if you use the word ethics" and "Ethics is less juicy for MSM than corruption" are not mutually exclusive either. They laugh at you precisely because it's a less juicy topic. [SEP] > "People laugh at you if you use the word ethics" and "Ethics is less juicy for MSM than corruption" are not mutually exclusive either. They laugh at you precisely because it's a less juicy topic.  Sorry, but that's some mental gymnastics there and i'll explain why: Saying ridicule and MSM interest are not mutually inclusive is true (this statement is therefore valid). But it is still not established that people laugh at me because i use the word ethics (the statement is therefore not sound).  You then add "They laugh at you precisely because it's a less juicy topic." as if your previous statement supports this conclusion, which it does not, even if it was both sound and valid it would not have any relation with the fact that a topic is open to ridicule because the MSM has no interest.  Example: MSM does not care that my aunt had a baby yesterday, therefore people laugh at my aunt (or nearly any other conceivable conclusion).  The statement is sound (It is true that MSM doesnt care and it is true that my aunt had a baby), but it is not valid (the consequence is not that she is open to ridicule)  In fact to go a bit further, the way you use 'they' and 'people' is completely ambiguous. First you meant the SJW's with their meme's, then you shifted to the fence sitters, and now 'they' are MSM. These are weasel words and I mentioned this earlier.  I don't mean this in a condescending hurr durr i smart you not smart me want win debate kind of way, but you should really try to take a moment to think about the logic behind your arguments. Because up to this point have not made any counter arguments, i only pointed out the flaws in yours. Until you have a good argument i have no reason to make a counter argument, because doing so would be proving a false negative which is practically never a good thing.  Just sayin'.
Yeah just straight up stupid to me. She obviously didn't know how to defend at that point and it's not really something you can tough out. Just suck it up and tap and come back better next time. How long will she be out?  Really great fight though. [SEP] >straight up stupid to me  Easy to say that when you're not the person in the cage with your adrenaline pumping while thousands of people are cheering. You can't understand what Tate was thinking/feeling at the time. Not everyone makes perfect decisions in the heat of battle. for you to suggest she's "stupid" is really condescending and lacking in empathy. I'm a little disappointed by how many people agree with you.  I'm sure today she's watching the tape and thinking "I probably should've tapped sooner." But I don't fault her for fighting and holding out til the very end.
It entirely depends on the quality of the individuals and the relationship. You seem like the kind of person who looks at cheating as a 'careless' mistake that requires a sorry and we should all move on.   You've probably never been in a real relationship for any extended period of time (or at least I hope not). When you've been with someone for years things are different. They know everything about you. They know your family well. They've been to Christmas dinners and Easter egg hunts.You've been places together, shared amazing moments, and likely spent more time together than with anyone else. You may be splitting bills, your family may be helping pay for their college, you may share a car. You look each other in the eyes and say 'I love you' whenever you can.  To betray this persons trust and blatantly show you don't care about them or their feelings is much more than 'careless'. It is one of the harshest things one can do to another human (barring physicality). This, like any other cruel and unusual act, should not go unpunished. OP did a great thing. He took someone that tried to hurt him as deeply as possible and hurt them back.   Anyone who will cheat on someone in a long term relationship does not deserve respect, compassion, empathy, or anything else. They, male or female, are some of the lowest scum on the planet and deserve to be treated as such.  So yeah, maybe in your three week Facebook relationships where you hang out at the mall two times and then break up, cheating is a 'careless' mistake. To adults who are in a committed relationship for years, things are a little different. [SEP] > OP did a great thing. He took someone that tried to hurt him as deeply as possible and hurt them back.  TIL that 'getting someone back' is essential to being a decent human being.   > So yeah, maybe in your three week Facebook relationships where you hang out at the mall two times and then break up...  What a bunch of condescending bullshit. Don't make assumptions about me. I have been in 'real' relationships (and am in one now), and if someone cheated on me, I would break up with them and leave it at that. I'm not the kind of person who seeks revenge after it's over. Because I'm not shitty like you or O.P.
>Perhaps it depends whether you turn first to the crossword puzzle or the cartoons in the newspaper.  Except Joyce is both of these.   If people let go of their pretenses of having to immediately categorize and understand everything, they might find that they actually enjoy Wake a lot more. But as is, barely anyone is willing to give it try out of a defense for their identity ('I like this, I don't like that...').  The only people who are intimidated by Joyce are those who refuse to admit that they do not in fact understand most of their own experiences throughout their lives and so shun a book which affirms this fact.  Joyce is a lot more than word games—his content is superlative—and you can see this most clearly in Dubliners where the word games are few and far between.  The reason he's revered (for better or worse) is because he is one of the few writers to have unparalleled content and style (which reinforce eachother by shared themes): most writers have neither, some have either/or, and remote few have both. [SEP] > If people let go of their pretenses of having to immediately categorize and understand everything, they might find that they actually enjoy Wake a lot more.  That is a condescending little lecture. I don't feel the need to immediately categorise and understanding everything, far from it. Do you assume everyone who disagrees with you about this is a rube? All you know about me is that FW doesn't speak to me, and I consider it a failure -- I'm not intimidated by it in the least, just left cold.
Jean Luc Picard is as much a scientist as a captain. Watch the show, and you'll see he has a good understanding of every system on his ship. In one episode he learned Bajoran irrigation systems so he can help out in some repairs. So he's a perfect example of a scientific leader. I'd rather have him as president anyday than another space-mining xenophobe time after time. [SEP] > Watch the show, and you'll see...  Well, that's a bit condescending. First off, I have seen the show, I watched through the whole thing again maybe half a year to a year ago.  Second of all, no one is denying that Jean Luc is very smart, but he isn't a specialist like Giordi. His skills are in diplomacy and command, which is why every other episode he does what any sensible captain would do and refers to the expertise of his Chief Engineer, Dr. Crusher, or whoever knows the most about the field in question (or Data who has an encyclopedic knowledge of everything but sometimes lacks a bit in imagination when it comes to applying said knowledge).
That's a big vibe I get from American culture. There's just seems to be an urge to be offended, either personally or on someone else's behalf. [SEP] >There's just seems to be an urge to be offended, either personally or on someone else's behalf.   Is an overprotective respect for diversity better or worse than the way they treated people of different races or beliefs in the past? Remember that it has only been what, 50 years since the Civil Rights Movement in America? Americans have unique practices in terms of tolerance today because America is in a unique historical position regarding race relations. If people today are too quick to point out what might be offensive, even on the behalf of others, this seems like a much more perceptive attitude than those of previous generations. There is a conversation to be had about whether today's ubiquitous "tolerance" is more limiting and in fact more condescending and contemptuous of foreign cultures, but it is neither here nor there. 
Mainly because people tend to downvote when they disagree, yes. I'd say I've had neutral-to-positive interactions with the majority of those who've actually bothered to respond to what I say. [SEP] > Mainly because people tend to downvote when they disagree, yes.  That may be what you'd prefer to believe, but you don't know it's true, and you'd do well to consider that it's not. For example, I have you tagged as arrogant and evasive based on your behavior here. I've downvoted comments of yours specifically because you exhibited those traits (especially as I saw how frequently you'd do so), and that's also why I don't engage you myself. Agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with it.  If you'd stop condescending to people here and also genuinely address their points, I'd be less likely to downvote you. As it stands, you're halfway to being on the list of toxic users who'll almost always get a downvote from me (which includes atheists, BTW).  You're free to assume I'm just an outlier, of course, but I guarantee that if you'd used a different approach you'd have gotten a better response here. I'd definitely agree this sub has a downvoting problem, but that doesn't mean that some of the people being downvoted don't deserve it.
The Gnosticism comment isn't laughable. Your premises reek of Gnosticism ("creation is evil") and Nestorianism ("Mary is not the Mother of God"). It's disturbing to see ancient heresies resurrected in modern times, but not surprising given the social climates they grew out of. "Reformed" movement, indeed.  Adam and Eve shared one flesh; that is, Eve was formed from Adam's rib. Mary and Christ shared one flesh; that is, Christ was formed from Mary's egg. Scriptural exegesis being what it is, the parallel is quite clear. Frankly I'm not sure what to make of the conclusion you jumped to. That said, the flesh Christ inherited, He inherited through Adam. This is made clear in the genealogy narrative according to Luke. The necessary consequence from your interpretation would be that... Christ is corrupt.   Fortunately, your interpretation is not the correct interpretation. Mark 10:18 makes one thing clear: that things good only inasmuch as they participate with God. Obviously, Christ is God: Christ is good. Creation, also, is good. Man, made in the image and likeness of God, is essentially good. The sins of mankind don't undo the Lord's creation.   Reading Mark 10:18 in the manner you intend creates a whole host of issues. Baptism is completely without purpose. Colossians 1:24 makes exactly zero sense. Indeed, man would never enter heaven as "nothing unclean" shall enter the Kingdom of God.    Mark 10:18 was never intended to be read this way; nor was it intended to be applied anachronistically as you have done. Interpreting Mark 10:18 correctly, the Scriptures now make sense. Baptism has meaning. Our participation in the suffering of Christ has merit. We have hope to enter the Kingdom and be restored to life with Christ.   In regards to the rest of your post:   The angel's address to Mary was unique for a reason: because Mary is unique.   Mary spoke directly to God; she addressed her Son directly. Routinely, even. I'm not sure what your point regarding "Christ spoke directly to the Father, Mary did not" is.    Mary most definitely prompted Christ to His first miracle. "My time has not yet come," "Do whatever He tells you," what about the miracle at Cana is unclear in regards to the roles played by Mary, Christ, and those present?    Mary as the mother of all disciples is quite clear; who remained at the foot of the cross? Further, who took Mary into his house following the crucifixion? You pretend as if where Scripture ends, history ends. Mary lived past the crucifixion and resurrection; so did John.    The ark as a "dirty, filthy human object?" I suggest you re-read the narrative concerning the ark's construction, the homage paid to the ark by the Israelites, and the manner it was regarded. This statement suggests a shallow reading of Scripture.   The Church hasn't "insinuated" Mary into the Trinity (a blasphemous lie; who would prompt one to such speech?); Catholics don't confess to Mary; Catholics don't honor Mary with latria. Your knowledge of Catholic philosophy and theology is colored by your irrational hatred of the Church, necessary as it is to justify continued schism. Why must those outside the Catholic Church lie about her? That is not the work of God.  [SEP] > The Gnosticism comment isn't laughable. Your premises reek of Gnosticism ("creation is evil") and Nestorianism ("Mary is not the Mother of God"). It's disturbing to see ancient heresies resurrected in modern times, but not surprising given the social climates they grew out of. "Reformed" movement, indeed.  Yikes. You either misunderstand or misrepresent my perspective here. I made it clear that prior to Adam's sin, they were sinless and that all creation was good. Creation is corrupted by sin, but Christ's perfect work brings it back into line. Nowhere did I reject Mary's role in giving birth to Christ, that is simply your reaction to me rejecting her divinity. Thank God for the reformed church, without which Catholicism would have absolutely no theological accountability. Disagreeing with you does not make me a heretic, even though the Pope would certainly excommunicate me for not believing all their extra-Biblical dogma.   >Mary and Christ shared one flesh; that is, Christ was formed from Mary's egg,  This is not explicit, nor proven at all. Jesus didnt need an Earthly father's genes, He doesnt necessarily need a mother's either. There is nothing within Mary that Jesus needs, but Mary certainly needs everything that is within Christ.   >That said, the flesh Christ inherited, He inherited through Adam.   Jesus did not inherit flesh nature (Paul relates this to sin nature), but rather human nature. Of course He was born in the line of David and therefore Adam, but you choose to ignore that Joseph was not actually Christ's progenitor, merely his adopted Earthly father. We know that Christ is not corrupt, so therefore the humanity is separate from the flesh, which is the distinction that I made. You want to attribute this to Mary, but I would rather attribute holiness to God, since Scripture knows nothing of a Holy person that is not also God.  >Mark 10:18 makes one thing clear: that things good only inasmuch as they participate with God.  According to a reading that adds a lot to what Christ is saying here. Only a perspective formed outside of Scripture and thrust upon it would jump to such a conclusion.  >The sins of mankind don't undo the Lord's creation.  They dont undo God's creation, but they obviously derail His explicit will. We all violate the Law, but Christ has made atonement for it through His blood. God of course knew all this at creation when He declared it good.  >Baptism is completely without purpose.  Wow. Considering repentance and baptism are the two things Peter says are required for salvation, I would never make such a foolish claim. You misinterpret Baptism as making us good, however. We are not good, not until our flesh departs in death and we are resurrected into Christ. Conflating Christ's robes of righteousness with goodness is a leap that Christ never made. I am not sure what you meant by Col 1:24, I think you may have meant a different verse. Being clean and being good are two different things. If you disagree, you disagree with Scripture.  >The angel's address to Mary was unique for a reason: because Mary is unique.  Of course she is. She was elected to bear Christ into the World. We are all unique, and all the elect are blessed. Mary had nothing within herself that was meritorious. Christ chose to come through her, to share a special portion of His life with her that not many others would ever know. She is incredibly blessed. Scripture also shows that she is a black hearted sinner just like the rest of us.  >Mary spoke directly to God; she addressed her Son directly. Routinely, even. I'm not sure what your point regarding "Christ spoke directly to the Father, Mary did not" is.  Ahh, here we have a familiar misunderstanding of the trinity. Speaking to the Father is only done through Christ by the Holy Spirit. Mary never spoke to the Father, only to Christ. If Mary was sinless, she would be in perfect union with God and would not need to speak through Christ, because she would be sinless. She could talk directly to the Father without a Paraclete. She did not, thus she was not in perfect union with God and therefore sinful.  >Mary most definitely prompted Christ to His first miracle. "My time has not yet come," "Do whatever He tells you," what about the miracle at Cana is unclear in regards to the roles played by Mary, Christ, and those present?  Do you believe that mankind can alter God's preordained plan? If so, you reject His omniscience. I dont intend to speak for Christ here, but there are many reasonable explanations for what happened, none that involve Christ violating the Father's will.  >Mary as the mother of all disciples is quite clear; who remained at the foot of the cross? Further, who took Mary into his house following the crucifixion? You pretend as if where Scripture ends, history ends. Mary lived past the crucifixion and resurrection; so did John.  She was there at Pentecost. What isnt clear is that Christ's words of comfort on the cross should be taken to mean something completely different. At most she could be considered the mother of one, unnamed disciple. Where you make the jump to every Apostle is beyond me and certainly putting words in God's mouth. Choosing to read Revelation into this text is bad scholarship at best.  >The ark as a "dirty, filthy human object?" I suggest you re-read the narrative concerning the ark's construction, the homage paid to the ark by the Israelites, and the manner it was regarded. This statement suggests a shallow reading of Scripture.  It is made by human hands. God condescends to use it, but He could easily have made something better for Himself. It is God that makes it valuable, not the workmanship of it. In the same way, Christ and the HS makes us valuable, not because we have done anything ourselves to merit it. Mary is the same as any of us in this regard.  >The Church hasn't "insinuated" Mary into the Trinity (a blasphemous lie; who would prompt one to such speech?); Catholics don't confess to Mary; Catholics don't honor Mary with latria. Your knowledge of Catholic philosophy and theology is colored by your irrational hatred of the Church, necessary as it is to justify continued schism. Why must those outside the Catholic Church lie about her? That is not the work of God.  Regardless of what Catholic doctrine claims to be, in practice all kinds of heretical worship of Mary abounds. The fact that it is allowed to run rampant in your churches shows that even priests seemingly agree that Mary is worthy of worship. Mary is uninterested in interceding for us. She is dead. Christ is our great intercessor and you bypass God to get help from a woman. You slap God right across the face with such disdain.  >Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death. Amen.
Did I say anything about that?   I'll address it anyway. It's two different things. Some people don't like being with inexperienced people because it's usually less enjoyable, people improve sports and music etc with practice. Why is sex different.   People don't want to be with more experienced people usually because of some moral judgement, or insecurity and jealousy. I don't think those are the same as "well it was a one night thing and I knew they had no idea what to do so I turned them down". [SEP] > It's two different things. Some people don't like being with inexperienced people because it's usually less enjoyable  People who are inexperience may find it less enjoyable to have sex with someone with much more experience than them. Find it condescending.  I don't see how judgement based on sexual prowess is more valid than judgement based on your own insecurities. At last, it's you that's having sex, you should do whatever makes you comfortable. Not just kneel down to whatever people say you should feel, as it's been done here.
Actually, "it's just people having sex on camera for money," is a claim. You asked a question, I answered, in great detail. Now you're hostile and sarcastic. Whatever. [SEP] >Now you're hostile and sarcastic.   Look in the mirror, you were pretty condescending and hostile yourself. Don't even try to deny it. 
Wow. No need for your panties being as twisted as they are, this was obviously a question from a layman who has no background in psychology (in case you haven't picked that up yet, silly). Go ahead and google "no eye contact" and see what you come up with. It's normally referred to as a submissive act. Man, I sure hope you aren't planning to be a therapist of any sort...  Unless of course you were being sincere! In which case, thankyou! I should submit my findings to Stanford or something. If what you say is true they'll be super impressed! [SEP] I actually had assumed you did have a background in Psychology as you'd said you'd read all those studies, so I actually do apologise for that! There were no other comments at the time I gave mine, I believe.  >Go ahead and google "no eye contact" and see what you come up with. It's normally referred to as a submissive act. Man, I sure hope you aren't planning to be a therapist of any sort...  I dunno if it seemed like I was saying there weren't studies on it, cause you seem to be correcting me here, but actually I was assuming you were right and there are loads saying that! It's not my area, really.  >Unless of course you were being sincere! In which case, thankyou! I should submit my findings to Stanford or something. If what you say is true they'll be super impressed!  Thank you for indeed having a sense of humour anyway!  Anyway, yeah, my less condescending response now that I actually know you're a layperson is that psychology works across averages, especially with something as cultural as this, so it wouldn't be unusual for there to be times when it doesn't account for every human in every situation. Like, presuming this is a scientifically validated phenomenon, she was just an outlier in the data.  Edit: typo
>How about being able to psychologically profile everyone using your posts, likes, and answers to all of the stupid quizzes you are bombarded with while browsing Facebook? How about the fact that you cannot delete your account once it is made, only deactivate it?  I'd say the easy solution is to not use Facebook then, or do what I do and don't take any of the stupid quizzes or like anything. I basically use Facebook as an IM service or the occasional post about some news article I think is important. Unfortunately, most people that actually have something to say avoid Facebook like its the plague.  Facebook using this psych profiling to personalize advertising/sell to corporations. Like I said, I'm not scared of the government. The people will win every time, especially since we're more closely connected than ever in history thanks to websites like Facebook. [SEP] >...avoid Facebook like its the plague.  It's worse when used how it is used.  >The people will win every time, especially since we're more closely connected than ever in history thanks to websites like Facebook.  This is a joke right? I don't mean to be rude or condescending but have you walked down the street lately? Being connected on the internet isn't near as important as being connected in person, and people are becoming more an ignorant "FUCK YOU" type of personality complex, putting their own goals and wasteful wants above even the basic needs of others. This is clearly evident in many everyday situations, including everything from simple merging in traffic, to the line at the grocery store, not to mention that your friends posts are easily censored from your news feed, so that when you do have "something to say," only a few people see it.
It was just a guy wanting to know why women didn't call out men when they do stuff like this. He didn't ask his question in a disrespectful manner, so I'm not sure why he deleted it.  shrug [SEP] > He didn't ask his question in a disrespectful manner, so I'm not sure why he deleted it.  Because he wanted to continue in his delusion that it's women's fault that this kind of mansplaining happens.
Hearthstone made $400 million in revenue in 2016. I'm assuming their profits were pretty good as well. It also made 4x more their closest competitor. So yes there are numbers out there that show Hearthstone is still wildly successful and the competition isn't close to catching them yet.   I choose to spend my money on Hearthstone instead of full AAA game, is because I enjoy playing Hearthstone. I understand that there has to be a financial investment to keep the game going. I see more potential value in paying for Hearthstone cards than buying a game. For myself, I will enjoy most games for maybe 10 hours more or less, with some rare exceptions. Hearthstone I've played almost everyday for the past year and a half. Hell, I'm still getting value from GvG and Naxx cards that I purchased so long ago. It's funny you say "why do you like spending so much for not that much in return?" because to me this just shows your lack of perspective and total ignorance of a different opinion. You assumed that because you felt bad about your return, it's factually not a good return for everyone. I feel I got way more than my money's worth and that it has been a great return so far.  Finally, good. I have no reason to argue with someone over their opinion because you have different experiences and a different perspective than me. Just don't assume because you think a certain way, that it's the right way.    [SEP] I would have given you a proper response, and to some point this might seem like a forfeit, but...  > just shows your lack of perspective and total ignorance of a different opinion  If you can't express yourself with steeping to insults then there's no reason for me to drive this debate further with you.  You also keep assuming statements about me,  > You assumed that because you felt bad about your return  I didn't feel bad about my return. I'm fairly happy with my collection in Hearthstone and I choose to buy both Witcher 3 and the pre-order because those are my passions, but that doesn't mean I couldn't see myself buying more or trying for golden cards if the packs were cheaper.  And finally,  > Just don't assume because you think a certain way, that it's the right way.  This is just a really black and white way to view a debate. I just said this is a discussion about customer satisfaction and that's straight-up saying there isn't any right or wrong here. Being condescending doesn't make your argumentation look more "correct."
Either you are seriously stupid, or you love to argue. For the last time, I tried to end this argument 3 times now, each time politely, each time you came back more upset. You are an asshole. No argument. You fuck off. [SEP] >Either you are seriously stupid, or you love to argue. For the last time, I tried to end this argument 3 times now, each time politely, each time you came back more upset. You are an asshole. No argument. You fuck off.  Yes. Unfortunately for you, you insulted someone who enjoys arguing. I admit it. But you started it. Not me. Watch where you fire those slings and arrows. Some of them may come back to you.   However I would point out that your condescending and self-involved idea of polite behavior is just as misguided as your mastery of English.   I'm not upset. I enjoy getting sanctimonious and self-appointed people such yourself upset. I am good at it. You may think I'm an asshole as is your right. All I'll say to that is that when you point a finger you have three more pointed back at yourself. Which allows me to conclude that you must easily be three times the asshole that I am. Because at least I know what I'm doing. I know I can be an asshole to the people I CHOOSE to be an asshole to.   You however are the WORST kind of asshole. You actually think you are helping out and being polite when you point out your perceived faults in others.   The sad thing is you are neither intelligent enough to know when someone has made an actual mistake nor self aware enough to know that you should keep your fucking mouth shut because publicly pointing out the faults of others and telling people how to behave can be taken as rude. Especially when the person giving the lecture is mistaken.   Lastly:   >You fuck off.  I asked you first. What's more I added a little Latin in there that (should your Latin be a bit rusty) invites you to fuck off forever.   So... you first. Because now you have annoyed me to the point where I want the last word.   
"I didn't see it. I'm not saying it wasn't linked, I'm asking where it was linked...unless you're asking me to scroll through the 700+ comments to find something that you're specifically referring to when you know right where it is...? I did see people mention some TED talk, but a TED talk isn't scientific research published in a scientific journal or other credible source...it's someone's second-hand interpretation of it."  My bad. I was assuming you had actually read the dicussion of which you're partaking in.  http  there you have multiple links with the actual studies posted as references. TED talks are indeed not scientific research published in a scientific journal. I never claimed it was either. But it's quite common for researchers themselves to talk about their published work in such talks. It's NEVER someone's second hand interpretation of it. That's not allowed in TED talks. If your talk is about a study, it HAS to be your own. If you truly are genuinely interested, which I doubt, you can have a more in depth read at  http  as well for what it is I'm saying. (no I'm not claiming that article is science or in any way proves what I'm saying. It's just explaining my stance on it.) [SEP] > there you have multiple links with the actual studies posted as references.  I saw those. Those are studies posted to demonstrate there are problems related to obesity. These are not studies that support your argument ("No there are no direct health risks caused by being obese").  I have been asking you for studies to support your claims that obesity does not bring health risks, so I'm not sure why you linked me to the post showing all the studies that show obesity is linked to health risks.   >If you truly are genuinely interested, which I doubt  Why? Why say this at all? Why make this assumption? It's condescending and unnecessary. I already told you I am genuinely interested in this stuff, that I'm not here to troll. I have not used a single personal attack towards you, unlike the other comments you've received. I have only been asking you to cite sources to support your statement. There is nothing about my commentary that shows I'm here to do anything other than read the studies that support your claims, and you talk down to me.  >no I'm not claiming that article is science or in any way proves what I'm saying  Then why are you linking it? All I have asked of you is to provide studies that back up your statement that obesity does not bring any health risks. I don't want someone else's words to explain your opinion on the subject. I just want to read the studies.   I have been very consistent in my comments. All I have asked of you is to provide scientific studies to support your claim that obesity doesn't bring health risks with it. I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Surely, you didn't just decide this out of the blue. Surely, you must have read scientific research that explained how obesity does not bring health risks. All I'm asking if that you share the studies you must have read. I'm not asking you to link to studies that show the opposite. I'm not asking you to link to someone's explanation of your viewpoint. I'm just asking for the scientific research that says obesity carries no health risks, which was your claim.  I'm not sure how I can make this more clear, so that is why I have made this so wordy. I'm trying to be as clear as possible.
Some people do literally get in the way by using equipment incorrectly or for too long or whatever. Just because you paid for it doesn't give you that right.  I'm a member at a golf course. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to take 6 hours to get round the course with people behind me just because I paid my fees. [SEP] >Some people do literally get in the way by using equipment incorrectly or for too long or whatever.  "Hey, looks like you could use some help. I don't want you to risk getting hurt, so do you mind if I show you the traditional way to use this equipment? Also, give me a heads up when you finish so I can give it a go."  Not only are you offering them help in a non-condescending way, you're also letting them know you are waiting on it.
I don't think you understand how it works with animals. You can't pick a feature of a cat and say "well it looks like a tonk so it's a tonk". Especially when such breed is a specific hybrid. That's like looking at a horse and just because it looks like a mule, saying that it is one. Doesn't work that way. Tell these folks about their cats, if you're so confident.    http  [SEP] > I don't think you understand how it works with animals.  And I think you're more interested in being condescending at this point than in actually getting to the bottom of it, so I'm not interested therefore.  Have a good evening.
Word. He was very enjoyable to watch during his initial rise to fame ( winning NEL and shouted out by PPD).  But shortly after, he entered this toxic period which made him really not enjoyable to watch.  It's probably harder for him to realise because it wasn't really the typical flaming/destroy your items/vulgarities/chappie or other form of toxicities that are common. It's more of a holier than thou whining/deflecting blame. Kinda hard to describe actually but definitely unpleasant.  It probably was one of the contributing reason why it seemed like he was singled out/ostracized/bullied by other high MMR na pubbers/ pros at that point ( probably not totally justifiable).  Nowadays he is so much better imo. Props for him for maturing and setting an example because not everyone matures even with age and experience.   [SEP] > It's probably harder for him to realise because it wasn't really the typical flaming/destroy your items/vulgarities/chappie or other form of toxicities that are common. It's more of a holier than thou whining/deflecting blame. Kinda hard to describe actually but definitely unpleasant.  Reading through the other people's comments, mine might be an unpopular opinion and I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion, but personally I think that's still very much the case. I enjoy his content, particularly his guides, when he explains things outside of a match or when he's on a panel. I've learned a lot from him. However, I can't bear to watch him play pubs as he's still constantly micromanaging everyone, whining when the game doesn't go his way, and complaining what his team is doing wrong and what they should be doing instead. Unless he gets matched with pros, in which case he shuts down and hardly says anything. It makes his streams unbearable for me which is regretful as I'd like to watch him more often.  I also have a similar issue with his coaching. He comes across as rather unpleasant and condescending to the people he coaches to the point where I wonder why anybody would sign up for the session and take the abuse. The folks he coaches may be 3 or 4k MMR lower than him and sometimes struggle to grasp basic concepts, but that's not a reason to be an arrogant prick. It's strange as at LANs he comes across as a generally happy, chilled and friendly person, so I don't know if that's him being uncomfortable interacting with strangers or trying to assume a position of authority to overcome some self-confidence issues or what. But again, it makes the streams difficult to watch for me and I usually end up switching to someone else after a while.  I do hope that one day he will indeed mature and truly change his ways as he's got a lot to offer and it would make him much more accessible to people like me.   
If I may provide some science?   I'm going to take you on a little detour. And the caveat is that I need you to believe in evolution. with me so far?   So the thing is that microbes and bacteria are tough little buggers. Ever watch any discovery channel shows where some 3D animator consumed hallucinogenic substances and then dreamed up an alien world with funny species?  No matter how big something gets, it always gets killed by some bacteria/virus. They adapt way before we do. because in 20 minutes they double.   So... we could fuck up a lot of things... but bacteria will survive. Hell, there's already bacteria that lives at bottom of oceans, in vicinity of volcano, that survive radiation, etc... they're tough. And given time, and resources, they may evolve into something complex after we're gone.   Man is replaceable. we haven't done anything to improve nature since we've emerged. In fact, if anything we've drastically reduced diversity of everything we come in contact with. Perhaps we'll leave our home planet... but we'll do the same thing to the next one.  [SEP] Try to be more condescending.  Edit:  > If I may provide some science? > > I'm going to take you on a little detour. And the caveat is that I need you to believe in evolution. with me so far?  If the above isn't condescending language, then I obviously don't know what is. First, I take issue with your initial sentence and question. You ask if you may be allowed to provide some science as if the people reading your comment should have some aversion to it. To ask if you "may provide some science" implies that you believe it may be unwelcome, otherwise you wouldn't bother asking the question. Second, evolution is widely accepted, especially by the predominantly liberal users of reddit. To say, "I need you to believe in evolution" is like saying "I need you to believe that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun." Third, there is no adult on this website incapable of following your first three sentences. You ask, "with me so far?" without having explained anything. It's the kind of question that you might ask of someone who isn't fluent in your language, or the kind of question you ask after giving a complex explanation. "with me so far?" is not the kind of question that you pose to someone who you consider to be intellectually equal to yourself. It is the kind of question that you ask someone who you consider inferior to yourself. Before even getting to your "honest scientific opinion," you've managed to insult your reader three times! And in only four sentences! And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels this way; I assume, from the way that she parallels your writing style, that missmalibu felt similarly affronted.  As to your opinion, I disagree with one thing that you say:  > we haven't done anything to improve nature since we've emerged.  To make this statement implies that you believe humans are external to nature, rather than a part of it. If you watch the Geroge Carlin clip linked to in the text of this submission, an overriding point that he makes is that everything on and in Earth is a natural and integral part of it. Furthermore, "to improve nature" is an oxymoron. It should be impossible to improve upon something that is in its finest condition without being modified by any external force. An improved nature would cease to be natural. 
Suuuuure, they'd have done something productive with the gold and agriculture, just like they have with their oil.  >Your last point is true, because history shows that explicitly. A bunch of foreigners who are loyal to another country (US White settlers) were allowed to settle within Mexican borders and it resulted in almost half of Mexican territory being lost to the US in a later war.  Congrats on finally getting it. I don't think we're obligated to replay #1 in reverse just because the French gave us a rusty statue. [SEP] >Congrats on finally getting it. I don't think we're obligated to replay #1 in reverse just because the French gave us a rusty statue.  That's fairly condescending, considering your previous post doesn't even make sense.  Mexico has been exploiting oil in the gulf for almost half a century, and in 2006 they were the 6th largest oil producer in the world. Your sarcasm fails horribly because they have done much with their oil, so presumably they would have done "something productive" with the gold and agriculture too.  >Congrats on finally getting it. I don't think we're obligated to replay #1 in reverse just because the French gave us a rusty statue.  They didn't give you a rusty statue, you let it rust. I didn't say you're obligated to give back any lands. It is interesting however, that the US was totally cool with sending white settlers into Mexican territories while the two countries were at peace with the intention of annexing Texas to the US, but when Mexican migrants want to settle in the US it is a huge problem (I'd like to point out that these Mexican migrants are not "loyal" to the Mexican government, they are only trying to earn a better living. There is no malicious political intent like there was 150 years ago on the part of the US government).
They aren't degrading the English language, they're providing a service in a different language for those who need it. I think it's hilarious, but they aren't taking anything away from English in the process. [SEP] > they're providing a service in a different language for those who need it  You can try to put a positive spin on it as much as you want, but it is undeniable that the preferred course of action would be to stick with standard English and have people learn it. This Pidgin service is way past condescending.
So did I.  You think it'd be easy to point out some positive executive order or some new legislation he's passed that has resulted in something good.  I guess you can't come up with one either.  Meanwhile... Nazis in the streets are also good people according to Trump. There you go. One bad thing. Not responding to Puerto Rico fast enough. There's two. Appointing a bunch of billionaires to his cabinet, one Devos, has no experience whatsoever in education. Three. Not being able to unite the country and get anything done. Four. Building a wall when most illegals come here on airplanes and drugs cross the border on trucks, flown by drones or brought through tunnels. Five. Dakota Access Pipeline, do we need to fuck over the Indians again and do we have to do it for a foreign oil company? Six. Having a bunch of crooks in his administration and his campaign staff who either get fired, resign, indicted by the FBI or have one pending in the coming weeks. Seven.  [SEP] You asked a question in response to a question without answering.  >I guess you can't come up with one either.  you're ascribing a viewpoint to me when all I did was criticize your methodology. I don't know why I bothered trying with someone so quick to jump to insults and a condescending attitude. 
Are you a male? If so, then yes, males generally have more foolproof methods of killing themselves(and more violently at that). For example, guys are more physical with their methods, such as using a gun, hanging themselves, etc. whereas on average females would rather swallow a bunch of pills, suffocate themselves, etc. More indirect methods so to speak.  I'd like to take the opportunity to say that if anyone reading this has been seriously thinking about suicide because they are depressed or whatnot, take a moment and think. Just because you're "only" killing yourself doesn't mean you're not hurting others. Your loved ones will wonder why they didn't see it coming/do more to help you.  More often than not, your problems are temporary. They can be solved.  Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.   If you ever need someone to talk to, let me know, be it through a PM or whatnot. Hell, I'd be willing to talk to you over the phone if you really just wanted someone to talk to. And if you can't get ahold of me, try /r/SuicideWatch or a suicide hotline. Please. Think before you act.  [SEP] > Just because you're "only" killing yourself doesn't mean you're not hurting others. Your loved ones will wonder why they didn't see it coming/do more to help you.  Sorry, but this matters little for many many people in that situation. Even if you hurt them for a little you believe your absence will be better in the long run. It also makes you feel even worse because now you feel guilty for even considering it. I'm such an asshole for not thinking of how it would affect others!   If you even think of them... for many... you just want it to fucking end. Please. Just... end... please... no more... please... turn off the lights... please...  Saying things like "more often than not your problems are temporary" is also, to me at least, belittling. You don't need to drown for a long time to drown. Just long enough.   The problems are also not just about length but weight. Then having that weight on you for far longer than you ever thought possible... and back to my first paragraph.   >Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  Life itself is temporary if we are going to say such things. That is a platitude and it fucking irks me every time I hear it. Like it is somehow a pearl of wisdom passed on from person to person. It actually doesn't say anything useful or meaningful. Just smells like what it is... bullshit.  Don't make mountains out of molehills... right? Everything that doesn't kill you makes you stronger? Time heals all wounds? Nothing is impossible? Happiness is a choice?  Yeah... all the same ballpark of bullshit.  Just want you to keep these sort of things in mind when you are addressing people with these issues to be careful... it's too easy to sound condescending, belittling, or make them feel WORSE by making them feel guilty because of how they feel (the whole "Think of your loved ones"). Guilt isn't keeping anyone here for long if that's the last line of defense.
You fuckers won't stop bringing us into shit! I have never disliked Liverpool but you scouse fuckers are always bringing Dortmund into shit! "Liverpool have made an offer to sign Ousmane Dembele" later that day Dortmund announced the signing! "Klopp can just bring Gundogan from Dortmund" "REUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS" "Liverpool rival Dortmund for Guerreiro"   and on top of that we have you guys constantly throwing your fluke win around as like a badge of honor just to specifically shit on Dortmund. Newsflash: Sometimes the worse team wins. Sometimes magic happens. Remember Palace 3-3? Yeah it happens. Parading it around to shit on Dortmund and the Bundesliga, and then on the same cheek saying "lets get Dahoud! Lets get Hector! Lets get REUS!!" is fucking ridiculous.   And now to top it off you have wasted five minutes of my life to write out how the /r/soccer memes about you lads are true [SEP] Hahaha jesus christ man.  My initial comment was just my honest opinion and I didn't insult anyone. I expected a discussion but all I got was some Dortmund fans going on about how shit Liverpool is. I return the favor with a bit of banter and you go all out lmao.  >"Liverpool have made an offer to sign Ousmane Dembele"  >Liverpool rival Dortmund for Guerreiro"  You blame scouse fuckers for the media's headlines?  Liverpool fans are joking when talkign about Reus lmao and Gündogan was leaving anyways, why do you care if Liverpool fans want him at their club? It's not like Bayern signed him.  >and on top of that we have you guys constantly throwing your fluke win around as like a badge of honor just to specifically shit on Dortmund.  We aren't though. Only when condescending Dortmund fans with an inferiority complex reply to us with 'lulz liverpool' when we raise our opinion.   Get to fuck mate
"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."  That says better than I ever could why I refuse to be pleasant or complacent when it comes to opposing that which I find disagreeable. [SEP] > Picture all experts as if they were mammals  They.... are.   I think with even the most basic understanding of biology, astronomy, and anatomy it becomes very clear that we know embarrassing little about our own existence and the Universe's function (if it has one). We cannot even replicate or come close anything within several orders of magnitude as the complexity of our own bodies. That thought always blows my mind. Our bodies are functioning on a level that makes us look like technological infants. Our own bodies!!! So yeah we are mammals and it's laughable how people consider us so special and different that the comparison with another animal is thought of as condescending. We're so proud of our free will while most of us spend our lives trying to procure shelter and sex. Sex(love, marriage, cheating, drama, dancing, clothing, worth, skills), job (need food and shelter to have better chance at mating).
> How often do you get physically assaulted in a relationship, compared to women?    - "repeated studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence at least as often as are women, [and yet] both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as surprising.""  -- "The Truth about Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue" McNeely, R.L.. and Robinson-Simpson, G (1987)   - "Women are far more likely to use weapons, such as throwing a plate or firing a gun.[21]"   -- wiki    > have mentioned are major or vast problems. When was the last time you got catcalled on the street?   Amazing. You're telling me:   - getting violently attacked & unable to get state help isn't a serious problem.    - But "catcalls" are.  Stunning. Consider this: women sometimes take a knife/hammer/etc & attempt to kill us men. What can we men do? Unless we caught it on camera, or we're very wealthy, absolutely nothing. No one in government cares. We're assumed to be the bad guy.  > How many countries can you travel to safely?   I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia. Men in the West are often treated unjustly & people like you are not aware of the issues.  > What I said is that the so-called "men's rights movement" does not have that as a goal.  You're just showing what you want to believe.    [SEP] You should read your own wiki link: it does not in fact support your argument.  >Amazing. You're telling me getting violently attacked & unable to get state help isn't a serious problem. But "catcalls" are.  I actually said "compared to". Getting violently attacked is a statistical abnormality (7% of men have been - compared to 22% of women by the way - oh, and that's from the source you posted), getting catcalled happens constantly. I doubt you understand what it's like being treated as an outsider or an object everywhere you go.  >Stunning. Consider this: women sometimes take a knife/hammer/etc & attempt to kill us men. What can we men do? Unless we caught in on camera, absolutely nothing. No one in government cares. We're assumed to be the bad guy.  Just die, I guess? It sounds tragic. Your posts make you sound like a condescending asshole, so maybe that's why that keeps happening to you?
Ok, you seem to be stuggling with the concept of "burden of proof", so let me explain it slower.   > You’re up there, you’ve got half the room going totally crazy wild, they loved everything, they want to do something great for our country," Trump said. "And you have the other side even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said treasonous. I mean, yeah, I guess, why not. Can we call that treason? Why not.    This is the quote in question, right? This is not proof of anything. This is a statement, made from a well known liar with a history of lying to trick stupid people into believing stupid things, such as the birther nonsense I showed you earlier. It is not true because Trump said it. It is not necessarily false because Trump said it, don't get me wrong, but it does not automatically start as true.   Since this statement is not sourced, we are under no obligation to believe it. Since the statement is coming from someone who can most charitably be categorized as "master manipulator of the media", it doesn't even gain the benefit of the doubt of being possibly true, as it is, in best case scenarios, another example of "le trolling". Would you fall for "le trolls"? I certainly hope not.  > If you were debating the President himself you could challenge his statement and the burden of proof would be on him because it is his statement. I am not the President so the burden of proof is yours.   Oh no. You don't get to hide like that. Burden of proof doesn't somehow invert because you've passed the statement from your left hand to your right. Since you're out here defending it, then I expect you to be able to defend it. If you want me to believe it, you better prove it. Prove his statement true or have it dismissed as the utter nonsense we both know it is. [SEP] >Ok, you seem to be stuggling with the concept of "burden of proof", so let me explain it slower.  You seem to be under the delusion that being condescending will help your case. It doesn't.   >This is the quote in question, right? This is not proof of anything. This is a statement, made from a well known liar with a history of lying to trick stupid people into believing stupid things, such as the birther nonsense I showed you earlier. It is not true because Trump said it. It is not necessarily false because Trump said it, don't get me wrong, but it does not automatically start as true.  >Since this statement is not sourced, we are under no obligation to believe it. Since the statement is coming from someone who can most charitably be categorized as "master manipulator of the media", it doesn't even gain the benefit of the doubt of being possibly true, as it is, in best case scenarios, another example of "le trolling". Would you fall for "le trolls"? I certainly hope not.  Your dislike for the President does not change the rules of debate. Long winded rants about how much of a lair you think the president is are not evidence of anything but your inability to remain impartial.  >Oh no. You don't get to hide like that. Burden of proof doesn't somehow invert because you've passed the statement from your left hand to your right.  Nothing is being inverted. The statement stands until refuted. Post evidence or concede. 
I mean, to be fair, it is kinda problematic to have a white dude wearing a sombrero, and those balloons with mustaches could be fairly viewed as racial caricatures. But I'm guessing most of the redditors here didn't bother actually reading through the article, and just took the title at face value because it reinforces the anti-PC circlejerk that you guys enjoy so much. [SEP] >kinda problematic to have a white dude wearing a sombrero   People from Latin America come in all shapes in colors. You know there are white Mexicans right? Guillermo del Toro, Greg Garza, Louis CK etc. In your effort to be "culturally tolerant", you end up looking even more ignorant. Also, in Latin countries, people like you are viewed as gigantic pussies and condescending as fuck. Only in this country do we give this much of a fuck about being this sensitive. Nobody in Mexico gives a fuck about how "problematic" a "white dude wearing a sombrero" is. 
I didn't downvote you. I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree. All I'm saying is what I've experienced in my travels in the deep countryside is that labels matter. Part of the reason why when in "liberal hunting permit" bumper sticker territory, I'd switch my label to progressive, at least for a while, until the locals understood that they are getting screwed over too. Then we can start to discuss labels better. But whatever works for you, that's fine. More power to you.  [SEP] >All I'm saying is what I've experienced in my travels in the deep countryside is that labels matter.  Well, again, I've lived in the countryside or in small towns most of my life. Labels matter a lot less than you think and it's more as a point of joking. They have the "liberal hunting permit" bumper stickers because they know it scares the shit out of liberals.  >Part of the reason why when in "liberal hunting permit" bumper sticker territory, I'd switch my label to progressive, at least for a while, until the locals understood that they are getting screwed over too.  I openly avow myself as a socialist to friends, family and folks I don't even know. And not just a socialist, but a Marxist, as well. The "locals" know they're getting screwed over. Those same folks I go shooting with on the weekends.  That's part of the thing that bothers me about the "What's The Matter With Kansas?" thesis. It's condescending and it does not distinguish between "liberal" and "socialist." I'm hostile to liberals, too, because they've been at the forefront in oppressing the socialist movement, up to and including assassinating our leaders.  There's good reason why liberals are treated with disdain in rural areas. It's because liberals do not have a good economic plan or understanding of rural economics. It's primarily an urban phenomenon, and things are truly different between the two. It's not just the gun issue. So, they know that the Republicans do not have this either, but Republicans are in touch with the social issues they care about. When your main choices presented to you are: a.) a candidate that does not understand the economic situation and a candidate who does not understand the social situation, and b.) a candidate who has no good economic plan, but at least understands where you're coming from on a social level, they're going to vote for b.  If you have a candidate that truly understands the economic issue, and can relate it back to your social concerns (or most of them anyway), then they'll vote for that candidate over the other two. But liberalism itself is a dead fish in the countryside, and always has been. Conservatism is precarious because there are no other options. The reason why socialism was popular way back when was because it melded the economic vision with the social communitarianism that characterizes a lot of small towns, and, if you're good, could relate it back to basic Christian ethics, like the Socialist Party did.  If you're going to stay just as a traveller to the countryside, I'd recommend you trash Thomas Frank and pick up, instead, Joe Bagaent's books -- where Bagaent was a socialist and lived in the countryside all his life, actually, as opposed to Frank who is merely a liberal and is a suburbanite -- Deer Hunting With Jesus and Rainbow Pie. He gets at the issue better than anyone else, and he doesn't use the same bullshit condescension that liberals use -- "voting against their interests" and all that.
I was trying to undermine your argument? News to me.  If you are going to go on about how awesome your father is, how great he raised you, it may behoove you to act in a manner that demonstrates it.   That's all, just something for you to think about. [SEP] >I was trying to undermine your argument? News to me.  no it's not. stop acting above it all. undermine means you were attempting to dismiss my arguement without actually having to respond it or engage the issue. you chose to do this by attacking my character. and it worked. here we are not talking about the baby puff from a cigarillo, im defending myself. congratulations, your logical fallacy worked. you keep saying that im not acting like i was raised by good parents, but you're the one on here being a condescending, passive-aggressive, holier than thou asshole and attacking people and their family members. your name is literal "downvotingthedummies." i bet you're a pleasant person in real life. 
Okay. Here is one single goddamn example.  Tom Dashcle wrote a letter of apology to Max Baucus and Charles Grassley regarding the tax situation he got himself in to. Who are Max Baucus and Charles Grassley you ask? They are Senators and I don't see them wielding more power now than they did before because they were apologized to.  Exactly how far do you want to take this twisted logic of yours? I'll say it again and try to let it sink in here; simply apologizing to someone does not automatically constitute political power. [SEP] >Who are Max Baucus and Charles Grassley you ask?  Now, you're being a condescending asshole.  Daschle only apologized to them because he needed their support (power) for his nomination to remain viable.   >simply apologizing to someone does not automatically constitute political power.  Of course not- but in insisting that Steele's apology to Limbaugh wasn't due to the enormous influence that Limbaugh wields in the Republican party, you are either being disingenuous or naive.  
>- Food deserts are places with few places where food is available. Many people live a great distance from the nearest supermarket and lack the means to get to those places. Thus, they rely on cheap, shitty food.  Covered by my point, "access to produce"   >- Prepared foods are quick and easy. Many of us have the time and energy to cook. Others work three jobs and have very little time or energy to do so.  I'm painfully aware of this. However, with a refrigerator, this is easy to counter. Or, calories can be controlled with going out, which helps because food out costs money.  >- Compulsive overeating is one of the most underdiagnosed disorders in the United States.  Source? I'd believe it though, but I would like to see how much is treatable by will and how much is legitimate addiction. I compulsively overeat, but I control what I buy (buying foods that require cooking, and portioning out meals for a day), which controls my overeating. It would be a lot harder if it was the same as, say, alcoholism, for me.  >- Others have physical disorders, such as glandular conditions.  Less than 1% of the population has issues serious enough to cause obesity from that. This is covered by my disability point.  >- Many poor people rely on school lunches. Don't get me started on the quality of those.  These are children. Still, it is a very real factor for those kids.  >- Some studies have suggested that fattie foods are literally addictive.   Again, we come to having to determine how many people have a serious addiction. I do pick up oreos from time to time, but my cravings can be countered by conscious choices. We need to determine how bad it affects people, first.  >- I don't think I have to prove the power that ~~brainwashing~~ advertising has on the human mind. How many billions does McDonald's alone spend on ~~brainwashing~~ advertising?  The fact that those with a higher income don't eat all their meals there has implications for this.  - People respond to stress in different ways. Many people need to eat when they're stressed. This is not the best way to deal with it, but it is the source for some people. I don't think I need to expound on the stresses of poverty.  This probably falls somewhere within your previous two food addiction points. I also stress eat, but again, it's controllable. It's hard to determine how big of a factor this is. And yes, I do live close to poverty (in it, but my income could buy me more if I gave up school, so it's not exactlypiverty). Although my income is greater, I have a looming college expense that is actually greater than my income.  >- Most jobs today require sitting for extended periods of time. If you work long hours, as the poor often have to do, a lack of exercise is a given.  Obesity is caused by excess caloric nke. While exercise is needed for a healthy lifestyle, it is not needed to counter obesity (although it should be promoted!). In addition, many low wage jobs are somewhat active.   It feels like you reached a little for many of those points, although many were good. [SEP] > However, with a refrigerator, this is easy to counter.  For you, in your situation. Not everyone is in your situation.  > Source?   http   Among others.  > but I would like to see how much is treatable by will and how much is legitimate addiction.  If you actually had experience with people who suffered from this, you wouldn't be so dismissive of it. The truth is that compulsive overeating is treatable, with talk therapy, support groups, and medication when necessary. However, as we just discussed, most people who have it don't get diagnosed, and a major part of the reasons for this is reductionists like you, who promote the idea that losing weight is nothing more than a matter of willpower. This not only prevents people from seeking real medical or therapeutic help for food addiction, it wrecks their self-esteem (as they feel that something so simple is out of their control), which, as you can imagine, causes them to eat more, not less. Hence why I've said elsewhere on this thread, reductionist attitudes are counterproductive. They exacerbate the problem.  > These are children.  Who will grow into adults. And there are more than enough studies connected childhood diet to adult diet.  > I do pick up oreos from time to time, but my cravings can be countered by conscious choices.  I added the emphasis. Your cravings can be countered. Bully for you. It doesn't mean everyone's can.  > The fact that those with a higher income don't eat all their meals there has implications for this.  The implication being that human behavior is very complicated, and reducing it to any one cause (such as "personal choice") is condescending and useless?
His podcasts have been declining in quality for a while now.   I’m amazed he sticks with guests like JVG instead of having a guy like Nate Duncan on. Lowe and Nate interact on twitter but Lowe doesn’t seem to want him on the pod.   Lowe’s podcast guests leave so much to be desired. It’s generally the same people over and over and the same boring premise over and over.  [SEP] > Lowe and Nate interact on twitter but Lowe doesn’t seem to want him on the pod  It would be interesting to see if Nate would act as condescending toward Zach as he often does toward Danny and just analysts in general.
> Sure, being called brogressives doesn't mean that only men can be it, lesbians can be hypocritical too when it comes to social issues  But it's given a disctintly male name, kinda like manspalining or manspreading. It's almost like they have a problem with men. or something  [SEP] > It's almost like they have a problem with men. or something  Quite a jump you're making there friend. These are gendered terms because they are things that only men do, in the case of manspreading simply because our genitals hang out, and it's more confortable to just spread our legs. When it comes to mansplaining, it's a gendered term because it's a byproduct of our internalized misogyny, our society considers men's opinions better than women's, so some men believe they are in a better position to explain issues that affect women than those women themselves, which causes them to correct them even if they have no idea what they're talking about. That's what mansplaining is  You're separating these concepts from their social context, I think that that's why they look like hate words to you. The sad truth is that our society belittles women, and these terms describe one example of this inequality, that's why they are gendered themselves.
> Shocking the public consciousness on such a matter is the best possible thing that could happen. People need profound statements- symbols- to drive home the severity of a given violation of law or the importance of an idea. The point is to drive home a message.  Perhaps I used the wrong word. Sending the military to stop the CIA would be traumatizing to the public - eroding trust and causing widespread panic. I agree with you that "shocking" people to raise awareness and spur action is a good thing - unnecessarily disrupting society is not (especially when I would not make people more amenable to your cause).  >A President could put the onus on Congress by saying "the Congress need only request my assistance and I will send in the US Military." This carries the same undertone, but without violating the Posse Comitatus Act.   No offense, but I don't think you quite understand US law. Doing this is highly illegal. Posse Comitatus states:  >>Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress  That doesn't just mean Congress says "Ok, that fine", it means they have to pass an actual bill into law. That's not going to happen. They didn't do it during WWII, they didn't do it after 9/11 - they are not going to do it to arrest some CIA/NSA agents. Why? Because local and federal LEAs are perfectly capably of handling a situation like this (anything short of large scale natural disaster or armed insurrection)  >The main point here is to create "shock and awe" in the public consciousness, generate massive headlines to apply social pressure on all parties involved, and demonstrate the urgency necessary in upholding the Rights of the People.  I agree with your point, and sympathize on the principle, but you haven't really though this through. Using the military vs the police/FBI isn't just an unnecessary option, it's a worse one.   If the point of this act (aside from the practicality of actually shutting down the spying apparatus) is to demonstrate the return of the rule of law, and signal that people's Constitutional rights will be much more closely guarded, the best thing the executor of this plan (i.e. Presiden/Congress in this example) could do is to follow the law as closely as possible. The worst thing they could do is appear to be outside it and just another power player - this would simply erode people's trust in them (You can legitimately claim to want to stop an unconstitutional action, buy committing an equally unconstitutional response; remember Rule of Law isn't about the specifics - e.g. spying, etc - but the principle).   Also, this is not Ancient Rome - Americans don't like seeing soldiers in the streets, and shows of force in they're society (July 4th parades excepted). If you dont think that sending the FBI to raid and arrest member of the intelligence community, for breaking the law, would send "shock and awe" through the public mind, you dont know America very well. [SEP] > Sending the military to stop the CIA would be traumatizing to the public - eroding trust and causing widespread panic.  So a Commander in Chief acting in accordance with Congress on behalf of the People's rights moving against an agency that openly defies law and lies directly to Congress would traumatize the public? At least in that scenario the People would have a Congress and President working together on their behalf- that hasnt happened since 9/11 at least (especially wrt civil liberties). I dont think you give the People much credit, and see them as more frail then they really are- but that is just my opinion.  > No offense, but I don't think you quite understand US law. Doing this is highly illegal. Posse Comitatus states:  > That doesn't just mean Congress says "Ok, that fine", it means they have to pass an actual bill into law.  I have been an American my whole life, and I was wondering at this point of your response if you were being condescending; I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, I do know what it would require. To be fair, I didnt make that very clear- I didnt want to get in a massive word exchange as I was simply trying to make a point. Nonetheless, I'm not suggesting tyranny in response to tyranny- a simple look at my account history would demonstrate that. I even explicitly said "the President wouldnt even need to do it"- the point is shock and awe. This is hardly the first time a President has used bold words to incite a political result...  > That's not going to happen.  In the current political climate it wont. Probably not ever. And thats exactly the point and problem- we have allowed neutered politics to constrain even the debate of issues such as these. If we can't trust a governmental agency to comply with the wishes of the Congress, bold steps must be taken. If you think the DOJ is that path, fine. I happen to think that would get bogged down in political bullshit. I happen to think the President needs to be bold in his wording, restrained in his actions, but willing to follow through if done in a Constitutionally valid way. What's wrong with that?  > I agree with your point, and sympathize on the principle, but you haven't really though this through.  I appreciate you telling me whether I've thought something through- I realized the condescension here. Regardless of intent, this is offensive. I have thought this through- its about making a statement. I even said right in my opening sentence of my first response "call me extreme if you like." Again, I also said "The President wouldnt even need to do it"- use the tools of your time. The power for encouraging debate with such a sentence given today's capacity to spread a headline is something that needs to be harnessed. Presidents are too damn worried about poll numbers and political correctedness- make a bold statement, let a sizeable percentage hate you, and let the irate minority (which for example is, you know, what /r/privacy is a part of- we certainly arent the majority) carry the discussion forward.  These agencies openly lie to Congress to obscure tyranny... it took a man breaking the damn law to really drive home the message and get people talking (Snowden). Sometimes you have to push limits. Sometimes the system doesnt do an effective job of policing itself and the People need to get angry to fix it. There was even a political response to the Snowden leaks, impotent though it may have been. The point is that people had called this for YEARS and nothing was done- shock and awe caused crisis which inspired at least debate, if not at least some change.  > Also, this is not Ancient Rome  Implicit ad-hominem attack. I know this isn't Ancient Rome. This is condescending plain and simple. I wont downvote your response, but I will admit this made me consider it.  > Americans don't like seeing soldiers in the streets  Oh make no mistake- I'm not advocating the President march the military down Main Street as a show of force. I am talking about federally owned land where rights-infringing out-of-control beyond-the-law oath-breaking federal agencies are responded to with takeover if necessary and if supported by Congress. But again more importantly, I am talking about the political force exercised by the mere sentiment of such a perspective being in the mind of the President. If the President is saying this is a disaster and we ought to be fighting, you had best believe the People will respond. The People apply pressure to Congress and who knows what change can happen in a short amount of time.  > If you dont think that sending the FBI to raid and arrest member of the intelligence community, for breaking the law, would send "shock and awe" through the public mind, you dont know America very well.  Hell, Snowden revealed something far beyond that and most Americans didnt even seem to care... or have forgotten. I have to say I dont agree with you. People need an authority figure to come out in support of them in my opinion. The reality of our culture is that the People dont feel inspired or confident that their government has their best interests in mind, but more importantly feel powerless to do anything about it. They are relentlessly told that rights need to be sacrificed for safety, that their data needs to be collected as much as possible, that they are "for the terrorists" if they are against such action, etc. They need someone with power in that sphere to remind them that they have every right to be pissed about such actions. Words are cheap. Extending an offer if only put in motion by Congress is that reminder and is empowerment.   And again, "you dont know America very well" --> condescending, implies your superiority, and is in poor taste.  I dont want to fight with you man- I think we've both made our points clear. Something needs to change because we certainly arent winning. All our little political maneuvering shit isnt delivering and someone needs to shake up the political quagmire we have now.
This shit makes me so grumpy on this site. Just because crazy things haven't happened to the naysayer, doesn't mean crazy things don't happen. I've had many ludicrous experiences that I know would cause these people to reply ThatHappened. And I know for a fact they happened! I was there!  Yes, in real life it is possible for people to applaud a random bonkers thing you did.  Yes, in real life it is possible to evade the police, or have a fun experience with them  Yes, in real life a kid can be elusive as all the other children are basically slow flashbangs that can overload your senses. [SEP] >This shit makes me so grumpy on this site. Just because crazy things haven't happened to the naysayer, doesn't mean crazy things don't happen.  Yeh, it's reached the point I down vote any "that happened" comment even if I agree with the sentiment. It doesn't contribute to any conversation, ever. It's always just some smug asshole who feels like making a snarky comment for no reason other than to be condescending.
I grew up on welfare. We literally had nothing but beans and rice for a week straight sometimes.   That shame, stress and fear gets into your DNA.   I get that people around here are very very aggressively scrutinizing of moms (lots of angry projection) but they are still human with their own past, failures, insecurities and flaws.   I'm not saying that the mom is right or wrong here. But clearly this has hit on a very sensitive spit for her.   Also, speaking as a parent, I would not appreciate my kids being given certain things without my OKing it first.  [SEP] >I get that people around here are very very aggressively scrutinizing of moms (lots of angry projection)  I think this is unnecessarily condescending. You could just as easily argue that people are defending the mom because they've normalized behaviors like social ostracism and the silent treatment from their own parents (or would do this to their own kids). I don't think that's really true by the way, just trying to illustrate that I don't think "oh you're just [angry/inexperienced/single/whatever]" is particularly accurate or helpful. 
At first, I was a bit iffy about how fair a Potara fusion would be in this tournament. And then I remembered that SSG and all of its derivative forms aren't actually Goku's power and that he, too, basically brought power over from outside the arena (as SSG wouldn't have been possible without Trunks, Goten and Pan, who aren't present). Also, more importantly, that Goku was allowed to use the Spirit Bomb with aid from KO'd fighters. So really, Potara is fair game compared to all of that.   I don't even mind that much that Kale is now having a hard time against SSG when she was handling SSB earlier. Goku fought Jiren since then, while Kale barely got to practice her LSS form, so that's fine. But boy, I'm getting really sick of Goku's condescension towards Caulifla and Kale. He's only at strong as he is now because of that SSG ritual thing. Meanwhile, Kale and Caulifla have been Super Saiyans for barely any time at all, and they're already giving him a hard time. And yet he still thinks they "aren't ready" for God. News flash, douchebag: you SS2 (possibly even SS3) seems to have been way weaker than what these two can manage when you became SSG.   I'm gonna be really sad when Kefla gets defeated eventually. Caulifla and Kale are really interesting. [SEP] > I'm getting really sick of Goku's condescension towards Caulifla and Kale. He's only at strong as he is now because of that SSG ritual thing.   What the hell? The last thing Goku has been towards these two is "condescending", and even if he has, what of it? He is far superior to either of them in every possible way and the only reason they've been around this long is because Goku was playing/toying with them and is still recovering after having one of the toughest fights he's ever had. And to say he's only as strong as he is now because of a ritual is being willfully ignorant and disrespectful of all the time and effort he's put into surpassing his limits. Or are you forgetting that Goku was also displeased with obtaining SSG through a ritual instead of through his own power but had no choice because Beerus literally would have destroyed the Earth.   You chew out Goku for "only being strong cuz of SSG" but what about Kale and Caulifla? What have they done to warrant having such incredible power when less than 48 hours ago they didn't even know what a Super Saiyan was? Better yet, why is Kale the LSSJ? Why was she given her own unique SSJ tree different from everyone else's? If she didn't have that convenient hulk form, how strong would she be? The answer is not strong enough to matter.   > Meanwhile, Kale and Caulifla have been Super Saiyans for barely any time at all, and they're already giving him a hard time.  Giving him a hard time is a good way of sugar coating and glossing over all of the handicaps Goku is in. If he was completely fresh, serious, and could access Blue at 100 % power, he'd beat them in less time than it takes to say "Senzu Bean".   > And yet he still thinks they "aren't ready" for God.   Because they aren't, or did you not see how outclassed they were when he was God while still recovering? Kale exchanging a few blows with him in not an indication that she's on his level, since she struggled to deflect a simple ki blast and her full blast did absolutely nothing to him.   > News flash, douchebag: you SS2 (possibly even SS3) seems to have been way weaker than what these two can manage when you became SSG.  Thanks to the convenient power boost Toei gave these U6 Saiyan Girls to keep them relevant in this tournament after introducing them in the same arc. I get that your salty about Goku being better than these two but you don't have to belittle Goku for that. 
Zero sum matters. Minimum mmr and is irrelevent to most player and doesnt affect mmr being zero sum for the vast majority of players. Mmr remains zero sum even with abandons (you gain/lose the same amount of mmr).  I feel like it would not be much use to explain why the mmr system would fail if it was not zero sum, but here I go:  Assumed facts:  1. The average winrate is 50%. (This is safe to assume, for obvious reasons, if you dont understand why, then there is no point reading on)  Now, what if mmr was not zero sum:  If people gained more mmr by winning than they lose for losing, (e.g. win = +30mmr, lose =-20 mmr), then an average player, who plays 10 games a day, winning 5 and losing 5, would have a net gain of +50mmr. Therefore everyone would eventually have an infinitely increasing mmr.  Notes:  So how would giving a penalty for randoming, affect mmr?. Assume that the chance for an average player to random is p, any form of penalty would be innapropriate, because the average global winrate of 50% already incorprates randomers. Therefore any penalty would result in a non zero sum game, and over a large amount of games players will slowly gain/lose mmr even if they stay the same skill level. [SEP] >Mmr remains zero sum even with abandons (you gain/lose the same amount of mmr).  If you abandon in ranked you get a loss even if your team wins, so there is a total 50MMR lost in the match, ergo it's not zero sum. Good job wasting all that time writing up something to try to feel smart and talk down at me when you don't even know the basic facts about the system.  Why would anyone make a system where winning gives you +30 and losing gives you -20? Anyway, it would be stupid, but it wouldn't really do anything besides make the numbers arbitrarily get bigger over time. You'd still have the same relative differences between differently skilled people, so the system would still work as it does using the same metrics as it does, just with arbitrary inflation over time. You might as well say currencies don't have "legitumacy" because they change value over time.  But no-one was talking about designing the entire system with arbitrary inflation anyway, that was a laughable strawman. We were talking about penalising someone extra MMR in certain circumstances (such as a person randoming and losing). Zero sum literally doesn't matter in this context, just as zero sum doesn't matter in penalising abandoners. Valve obviously agrees with me because otherwise they wouldn't have abandons set up the way they do, and they wouldn't have a minimum MMR, two things that directly go against zero sum in certain circumstances.  Bunch of faux-intellectual condescending tripe that sounds like you just read your first wiki article on statistics/game theory and want to act superior.
I regret not having kids is a pitchy headline for clicks, I'm not saying no women without kids could have ever benefited from advice that usually would be from other women don't you think and not scared little boys on the internet who hate women because no women wants them.   [SEP] > not scared little boys on the internet who hate women because no women wants them.  And now you're being condescending. You're using a popular shaming tactic, not actually addressing the proposed argument but rather dismissing it as "virgin boys being insecure".   You've lectured me on the importance of clear communication and discussion. Yet you write: "assumed a few details and assumed the outcome without offering alternatives or solutions".   See the hypocrisy? You are doing the same exact thing, you're assuming he's a bitter little boy being angry at women which gives you a way out of his points by dismissing them as "women hating". It's intellectually dishonest and lazy.   And to go further down this rabbit hole, you're actually proving one point this brilliant comment makes:    Essentially all facets of life are more difficult for a man, and a man has a greater potential to fail without a safety net in place, and since this dynamic will never be addressed or dignified by a female friend, and the social narrative is always on her side, men and women cannot truly be friends. Apart from loving to write, this is why I blog/help guys. Because I relate and I know on an intimate emotional level how shit it is to be an ignored powerless piece of shit that nobody gives a fuck about.  And you know what a weak, pathetic sad piece of shit guy wants more than anything when he's hurting and lost? A bit of comfort. A bit of fucking pity. A bit of appreciation for his struggle and his humanity. And he doesn't get it. He is rejected for that. For demonstrating that basic human need WE ALL have. All of us. Women practically FLAUNT FABRICATED PAIN and get cash and love for it. Young boys and men with legitimate serious issues? SWEET FUCK ALL. Why? Because even if he's a fucking failure of a man, he's still a man.  And so by being male, he is innately rejected by the people he needs most when he most needs them. This is one of the cruellest and yet simultaneously most wonderful things about being a man. But you won't see the beauty in it unless you come out of the other side. Pain is wonderful if it doesn't kill you, it's like steroids for the mind. Normal people can't fuck with you anymore, because you did your time - mentally. And it's that which separates the guys who turn their lives around from those who kill themselves, and get some fake bullshit eulogy from a bunch of fucks who were never there for him anyway talking about how loving and great he was. All bullshit. Leap, don't jump.    
If you ever had a parent deny you food when you were hungry because you wouldn't perform for him or her, then you have my sympathies.  Teaching my son how to identify and ask for the food he wants has resulted in him actually being able to identify and ask for the food he wants far, far more often, which is awesome for him and awesome for me and awesome for anybody else who deals with him during mealtimes.   So many times he's screamed, not because he likes screaming or because it's any sort of stimming behavior, but out of pure frustration. Solve the frustration, and the screaming resolves itself; then you do not have to make the mistake of, say, punishing a kid for screaming or rewarding a kid for not screaming, whether with food or not.  If you've been treated so badly that you see this approach as in any way abusive, then you deserve all the sympathies you can get... but you do have to understand what is being discussed and how it can actually result in a better outcome. [SEP] > Teaching my son how to identify and ask for the food he wants has resulted in him actually being able to identify and ask for the food he wants far, far more often, which is awesome for him and awesome for me and awesome for anybody else who deals with him during mealtimes.  This is true, and it's literally not what's being discussed in this thread. Nobody is saying the skill of asking for things is not worth acquiring. Even the skill of asking for things nicely is probably worth acquiring.  Nobody in this thread is discussing which skills are worth learning, only what methods are appropriate for reinforcing behaviours. Thus the constant use of the words food and reinforcement.  PS: Jumping to the conclusion that my stance on what is and isn't ethical must be informed by a personal traumatic experience rather than rational thought is incredibly condescending, and you should probably take a step back and think why you thought for a second that was, as people in this thread like to say, "socially appropriate".
I actually prefer smaller breasts. I see the stigma every day regarding dick size and really can't make sense of it. It would be like judging someone for their natural eye color.  What I do criticize for SDP is the fact that any empathy is ignored, as are other views that don't support some of the defeatist attitudes.  We can't pretend to change what others think if we think that ourselves. We have to be the first to make size a non issue and give an example that others can follow.  As for the negative experiences, I had those too. Some people are asshole, period. We are all better off without them, especially the ones that judge your body parts. [SEP] > What I do criticize for SDP is the fact that any empathy is ignored  I don’t think that’s what you really mean. Posts from women or average-plus-dick men don’t sit there with zero responses, as if SDP were ignoring them.   What you mean is that the small dick men don’t always show humble gratitude for the attention, but tend to argue with the support that is offered.  And think about it. Imagine Bill Gates went to a homeless shelter to say, look, wealth doesn’t really matter, your personality is more important, anyone can have a good life regardless of the resources they happen to have. All of that is completely true. But do you think paupers would be grateful to a billionaire for conveying this message?  Right now, small penis men are devalued in Western culture like never before. The current generation of young men have grown up in an environment just saturated with contempt for less endowed guys. Female celebrities, even J.K. Rowling, openly express derision for them. When the “news” spread that Adolf Hitler might have had a micropenis, a million men and women shared the story on Facebook with gleeful comments like “I knew it!”  (I have a small dick, but I’m in my 60s. I grew up in a time when nobody could mention the word “penis” on television. In my 20s, I didn’t even know I had a “problem”.)  You might not notice all this if you have nothing to worry about in the dick department, but small penis guys are very conscious of it. And this kind of thing can really fuck you up mentally.  So if a fellow with the benefits and burdens of a big dick goes to SDP and says, look, size makes no difference, he is spitting into the wind. It’s not just the lived experience of small dick men, but the weight of the whole culture and media and Internet, and the many millions who have been taught to find small penises humorous or disgusting.  To be truly supportive or empathetic, don’t blame SDP men for not instantly believing empty platitudes about their lives. Most of them will eventually learn to overcome this issue, but condescending reassurance doesn’t help them find that road.
So glad you posted about this one.  Really shits on all the people that believe the ONLY way to get in shape is to practice SS, worship Brodin, eat clean &/or IIFYM, or clen & tren (steroids). There are literally no exceptions. Crossfit is for idiots, bodyweight exercises won't get you anywhere, & if you're not doing squats you're wasting your time.  I try and tell people this all the time. Getting fit is not a physics formula. There are tons of ways to get in shape. People in prison come out ripped eating gruel and lifting bricks.  I go full time to ucla, have a job, workout every day, have a social life, & I still have a ton of screw around time which I use to binge watch Netflix/Amazon or play pickup sports with friends, etc.  Ironically the people who complain they're not in shape because they lack the time since they have a real job, spend 2-3 hours a day on reddit. You can ALWAYS make time for what you truly want in life. If you use the excuse that you don't have time, the real reason is you just don't want it enough to do something about it. [SEP] > I go full time to ucla, have a job, workout every day, have a social life, & I still have a ton of screw around time which I use to binge watch Netflix/Amazon or play pickup sports with friends, etc.  This just comes off terribly condescending without some sort of context.  
The same bullshit about the US doing it's bit for the humanity was spouted about the US war on Iraq. The liberals who signed on for that war told us that it had nothing to do with oil, and everything to do with humanitarian concerns, democracy, and Saddam's [non-existant] nuclear weapons. A few months into the conflict, Bush declared mission accomplished. The criminal and predatory occupation has continued for almost a decade, and has resulted in over a million deaths.   Complacent liberals and pseudo-lefts like yourself and Cole should have a think about this - whilst they "move on" in their middle-class comfort, the war they have been cheerleading for will be creating a nightmare and catastrophe for the Libyan people. I'm an opponent of Gaddafi and the bourgeois-nationalist perspective he represented, but the fact is that far more Libyan civilians have already been killed by NATO than by the Gaddafi regime.  Liberals types such as Cole aren't left - but they sure are cynical, corrupt, and entirely reconciled to the status quo. [SEP] Nice red herring with Iraq there. Nevermind that it has nothing to do with this and no resemblance to the situation at all. There's no Western occupying army in Libya. Libya is not, like Iraq, divided along sectarian lines. The claims about the significance of regional or tribal divisions are exaggerated and largely a fiction used by the Gadhafi regime to justify his brutality.  > Complacent liberals and pseudo-lefts like yourself and Cole should have a think about this - whilst they "move on" in their middle-class comfort, the war they have been cheerleading for will be creating a nightmare and catastrophe for the Libyan people. I'm an opponent of Gaddafi and the bourgeois-nationalist perspective he represented, but the fact is that far more Libyan civilians have already been killed by NATO than by the Gaddafi regime.  The "complacent liberals and pseudo-lefts" is exactly what I think of the Gadhafi apologists. It's easy for complacent Western leftists to downplay the horror of living under a totalitarian police state when they live in relatively liberal societies. They can pretend the material interests of the working class are only purely economic (nevermind that Gadhafi failed his people on that level too) and don't include freedom from secret police, omnipresent surveillance, arbitrary arrest and torture. After all, as long as that happens to other people, it's ok! It's only those girly wimpy bourgeoise liberals who could have a problem with that sort of thing!  The assumption that it's Gadhafi or NATO is complete bullshit. The left - or rather, this nationalist-fellow-traveler, racist, orientalist pseudo-left like yourself - apparently believe that the common people of "backwards" countries like Libya have no agency of their own, that they're not real historical subjects. That their only choice is to be hapless victims of foreign domination, or under the paternal protection of their local despots. It's an ideology which, far from being anti-imperialist, is the heir of imperialist and colonialist ideology, which constructs non-Western people as inherently stupid and backwards, as outside history and lacking political sophistication and constructive agency of their own, and depicts tribalism and despotism as natural and inherent to non-Western cultures. The sort of condescending and racist "left" which perceives the Libyan people that way - or any people that way - deserves to die.  The Libyan people have been living under a "nightmare and catastrophe" for 40 fucking years, under a brutal tyrant that many smug comfortable Western leftists have admired because of some stupid adolescent naive wide-eyed wobbly-kneed love affair for anything and anyone hip enough to offend bourgeoise sensibilities (the same way privileged Western leftists in the 60s thought Chairman Mao was super kewl); and a racist, condescending, arrogant contempt for the actual perspectives of people who have to live and suffer under these regimes.  The claim that more civilians were killed by NATO is completely baseless. Even if it's true - and there's no evidence that it is - so fucking what? Over the course of his entire reign, Gadhafi has certainly killed far more people.  Complaining about the violence of the revolution in general is irrelevant. It follows the usual moralizing Western liberal view of only regarding subjective violence, at shuddering at the violence inevitable in any revolutionary change, while ignoring or downplaying the objective, structural violence inherent to an unjust and oppressive social and political order. A revolution is not a tea party. If there had to be a period of excess violence to end the "normal" level of violence of the old regime, then so be it. You say you're an opponent of Gadhafi, but then you second-guess the means by which the Libyan people freed themselves from him, because those means didn't perfectly conform to your ideology. Apparently, people are only allowed to have a revolution if they do so in a way which meets the approval comfortable Western leftists. 
We can go point by point if you want.   > FBI who knowingly used unverified data collected by a foreign agent  Comey didn't claim that the entire dossier was "salacious and unverified," only that it contained salacious and unverified material (i.e. pee tapes). You can see an annotated record of claims on the dossier here. Also, if you're claiming that the FBI didn't disclose the dossier's funding source, you're flat out incorrect. If you're claiming that the FBI used the dossier to get their initial warrant, then there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim. The Nunes Memo is authored by a politician who hasn't seen the FISA application himself. His own memo admits that some claims in the dossier were corroborated and that Papadopoulos information was used to open a counterintelligence investigation in July 2016. The Democratic Memo paints an even more favorable view of the FBI, and it was authored by someone who saw the underlying FISA documents. The Democratic memo claims that Steele's raw intelligence did not inform the July 2016 counterintelligence investigation.  > paid for by the DNC  We know that the FBI disclosed the dossier's Anti-Trump leanings during the FISA application process. We also know that the information was originally commissioned by the Washinton Free Beacon — a publication run by former Wall Street Executives—before it was picked up by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.  > Who were discernibly biased against trump even before the election  It doesn't matter if the dossier and C. Steele have an Anti-Trump bias if the claims in the document are corroborated. Facts are facts. I find that people who make this statement often claim that Mueller isn't "objective" because of his "friendship with Comey." Unless you're willing to make the claim that Mueller's "bias" would propel him to falsify information during the special investigation, then any amount of alleged bias will not change the verifiable evidence he uncovers. Facts are facts.  > You need to watch something over than CNN, it's propaganda  It's funny that you say this seeing as your statement is so ill-informed. My post should be well-sourced to your liking.  > The clinton campaign took donations from foreign entities- which is illegal- and the FBI just ignores it.  I don't understand why you would even bring this up if you're trying to claim that Trump isn't corrupt. He solicited donations from foreign individuals including members of foreign governments at their official email addresses during his campaign. The facts contradict you heavily on this point.   Edit: This link is formatting weird for some reason. Edit 2: Got it.  I'm not even going to get into your subjective claims on good and bad policy because I don't think you're capable of a good-faith discussion. Now get your shitty politics off my Dolphins subreddit so I can go back to talking about fucking football.   [SEP] You can fuck right off with this manipulative propaganda.  >Comey didn't claim that the entire dossier was "salacious and unverified," only that it contained salacious and unverified material   So, uh...you're saying the FBI did in fact use a politically biased memo paid for by an opposition party that they know had salacious and unverified information in it...that was the basis for the investigation?  It was the Clinton campaign paying a company called fusion GPS to pay christiopher steele to collect information that the FBI knew was unverified but used anyway.    http #1c1b778d6867   http   Why did they go through fusion GPS if they werent doing anything wrong? and what was the premise of the investigation anyway? why did the clintons pay a british spy to investigate if it was a legal investigation? why not tip off the FBI if they had actual evidence of wrongdoing? Why go through such lengths to distance themselves from doing what you're saying was the right thing to do? And if this was an investigation into collusion from the trump campaign, why did it originate from a political campaign? isn't it odd that the FBI decided to start an investigation at the behest of a political candidate? Why was it the clinton campaign who started the process, and not a law enforcement agency? how did the clintons know of trumps illegal activities before the federal law enforcement and intelligence agency?  >The Nunes Memo is authored by a politician who hasn't seen the FISA application himself. His own memo admits that some claims in the dossier were corroborated and that Papadopoulos information was used to open a counterintelligence investigation in July 2016. The Democratic Memo paints an even more favorable view of the FBI, and it was authored by someone who saw the underlying FISA documents.   I honestly don't know if you're misinformed or lying, but this just isn't true. None of what you said counters the reality of the nunes memo at all- did you even read it? And that you'd even consider the democrat memo anything other than propaganda- which is it- shows that it's probably not worth the time talking to you...and you question whether or not im here in good faith?  Be honest- you don't actually know what any of these things are and you're just repeating what you hear elsewhere without understanding it, aren't you?  Over 14- or has it been 18?- months into the investigation and not only are there still no charges against trump, but the FBI can't even say what the charges would be. "Collusion"...how? Where? What happened? What is it that Trump allegedly did? Are they saying russia hacked voting machines?  >If you're claiming that the FBI used the dossier to get their initial warrant, then there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim.  Lies. From the Nunes memo:  "Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."    To talk about Trumps corruption is laughable when you consider the millions of votes cast by indocumented people who would not be allowed to vote but were in states like california where people could register at the polls with student IDs, or who carlos slim, mexican billionaire, bought the new york times and used it as a propaganda machine against trump. is russians buying facebook ads is collusion, why wouldnt buying the new york times?  You post shows that you just don't know how to think, all you can do is listen to what you're told and repeat it without understanding it . Get the fuck out with your condescending attitude to, you don't know what you're talking  
Well, to pick a few of your more idiotic points:  > There are more tools than only Microsoft's   If you did actually read my posts here, you would know that I am very far from being a fan of MS's programming products. I generally recommend the use of GCC and Code::Blocks for C++ programming, and python for beginners.  > The only exception is a small group of celebrity posters   A celebrity poster??? Is that what I am? Wow, fame at last! But seriously, how the hell can someone posting advice on programming be a "celebrity"?  > Discussion on submissions has delined sharply in the last year   Quantitative evidence, or it didn't happen.  > People who want to contribute are maliciously chased away  There you go again. How can I (or anyone) "chase you away"? There certainly are a few people here I'd like to see disappear, but so far my "malicious" activities seem to have had little effect.    [SEP] >If you did actually read my posts here, you would know that I am very far from being a fan of MS's programming products. I generally recommend the use of GCC and Code::Blocks for C++ programming, and python for beginners.  That's awesome, but what happens to anybody who says something like that any time the topic comes up as a submission here?  >There you go again. How can I (or anyone) "chase you away"?  In terms of this conversation, by being condescending and rude while intentionally dodging the actual topic.  In general terms, by disagreement and suppression of what is not even read every time I've tried to contribute here. It would be one thing if people showed me to be wrong, but they don't even read what they lash out at.  It boils down to: Do homework for people or go away. 
It's a pretty safe bet you have lived a privileged, cozy life and have never been to a blue collar town if you think it's "pretty sad" that factories and manufacturers prioritize safety over your "right" - because whatever your opinion it's still illegal - to do drugs.   In these jobs workplace injury is a fact of life even with sober, mindful employees. Throw in someone who likes to exercise his "right" to toke on lunches and suddenly the risk factor skyrockets. You're not even considering that meth and cocaine tend to be an enormous problem in small / labor towns. Sorry, but it is not your "own business" if you're a junkie and you come in to work in a dangerous environment with an addled mind. Employers NEED to know about your drug habits or they are inherently putting all of their other employees at risk.  And honestly, I hate to break it to you, but getting high really isn't as important as you think it is. Some people just want to work, be safe, and come home. There are jobs outside of the professional industry for people who prioritize drugs in their life. [SEP] Wow try to be more condescending. First things first, I live in WI where just about all towns are blue collar. I've worked in sheet metal fabrication, tube frame fabrication (mobility equipment), and even just general packaging. I know how life in a factory is. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about?  > Throw in someone who likes to exercise his "right" to toke on lunches and suddenly the risk factor skyrockets.  I literally said at the beginning of my second paragraph that this isn't okay. You can't go get a beer at lunch either. You shouldn't be on opiods or any other type of mind/motor function altering substances while at work, at all. Your mind or motor functions are not altered if you smoke some weed the night before. If you drink though... then you'll probably have some diminished cognitive ability.  > You're not even considering that meth and cocaine tend to be an enormous problem in small / labor towns. Sorry, but it is not your "own business" if you're a junkie and you come in to work in a dangerous environment with an addled mind. Employers NEED to know about your drug habits or they are inherently putting all of their other employees at risk.  I wasn't considering those things because I was talking about cannabis. When discussion about drug tests and privacy pop up, 99% of the time the protests are about cannabis. Cocaine and Meth are not comparable. In reality, alcohol addiction is closer in danger to Meth and Cocaine addiction, than daily use of cannabis is.  > And honestly, I hate to break it to you, but getting high really isn't as important as you think it is. Some people just want to work, be safe, and come home. There are jobs outside of the professional industry for people who prioritize drugs in their life.  Hey look, you were a condescending ass all the way to the end and still rambling about getting intoxicated at work for some reason. Just because someone smokes weed, doesn't mean they'll smoke weed before or at work. If they did, then yes they deserve to get fired.
Why are you making strawmen? Nobody is saying that Neeb is a worse player. But I have seen no-names take games from the likes of Nerchio or Snute with skytoss.   Keep ignoring the problem, but shut the fuck up at least. People like you are the problem with this subreddit. You only know how to complain when your own race is weak. Carriers are a problem in PvZ in their current state, everybody knows this even if they deny for the sake of being an asshole. [SEP] > But I have seen no-names take games from the likes of Nerchio or Snute with skytoss.  so... someone is worse because they don't have the same brand recognition as someone else?  i don't mean to be condescending but the whole point of skytoss is an unstoppable lategame and if you really are a player with the skill and knowledge of nerchio your goal ought to be to close things out before that happens.   ultimately what's unbalanced about P is that they have a rush game that's too weak and a boom game that's too strong (excuse my AoE terminology). P players are frustrated by the very high viability of Z and T aggressiveness and the ease with which they control the map compared to the limited early defense options that P has. at the same time, Z and T players are frustrated by the extremely high viability of P units when given the time and space to build them up. however, P needs this powerful lategame to offset its weak earlygame, else it'd just be entirely underpowered.   what this produces is a race which is 'balanced' on paper, but actually ends up being incredibly frustrating both to play as and to play against.  my point is that P players aren't 'being an asshole' for enjoying the strengths of their units which are actually viable.
Why did you reply to a post specifically about FFXI terminology then? Your comments about DPS meters and holy trinity and the like are not relevant to the discussion, that being the accepted terminology used by FFXI players. If you don't mind me saying, sorry, but I think you missed the point.  Also, based on me actually playing the game for years and not relying on wikis for my information, I am telling you that XI was not a holy trinity game. Of course there are healers, tanks, and DDs. But there were also jobs that existed solely to buff or debuff, and so on. There were jobs that could be built to perform any of those roles. I'm guessing from the tone of your post we will have to agree to disagree, but I think of a holy trinity MMO as being much more rigid in class roles than XI was. [SEP] >Why did you reply to a post specifically about FFXI terminology then? Your comments about DPS meters and holy trinity and the like are not relevant to the discussion, that being the accepted terminology used by FFXI players. If you don't mind me saying, sorry, but I think you missed the point.  Nice job resorting to strawmanning because you can't refute my argument. Also, the mimicry is only funny when it makes sense. I'll bite, though: why shouldn't I post? There are plenty of posts under the parent that diverge and touch on other topics, mention other MMOs, and people reporting varied and even contradicting experiences when playing XI.   The parent post was drawing parallels on various word usage in and out of the XI community, and how hostile the reception was to some terminology brought in by players from other MMOs. You, being the XI vet, are just proving the guy's point by acting like a pedantic, strawmanning asshole by telling me that my posts are irrelevant because they don't deal exclusively with XI. Are you going to go tell the other folks commenting under the parent that they shouldn't post because their comments may not deal exclusively with XI either? You do realize the conversation evolved and forked to include other topics beyond the parent post, right? Give me a break. Avoid the strawmans and stay on topic or go pound sand.  >Also, based on me actually playing the game for years and not relying on wikis for my information, I am telling you that XI was not a holy trinity game.   There's nothing wrong with wikis if the information they contain is factual. Another strawman, since you didn't bother refuting any of the evidence I provided (hint: you can't), and instead decided to condescend, as if my never playing the game matters. Pound more sand.  >Of course there are healers, tanks, and DDs. But there were also jobs that existed solely to buff or debuff, and so on. There were jobs that could be built to perform any of those roles. I'm guessing from the tone of your post we will have to agree to disagree, but I think of a holy trinity MMO as being much more rigid in class roles than XI was.  So by your own admission, the trinity exists in XI, but the presence of additional non-trinity classes/roles means XI wasn't a trinity game. Is that your only criteria for claiming XI is not a trinity game? Am I understanding you correctly?   The existence of those additional classes/roles does not negate the fact that trinity existed in XI. Either a game has trinity or not. XI had trinity. This is a fact. You claimed it was "not a holy trinity game," and it seems you're making this claim solely because the game also contained non-trinity classes. As if that negates the existence of trinity in the game or classifying XI as a trinity game. It doesn't.   If you want an example of a true non-trinity game, then look at Guild Wars 2.    
This is exactly what im talking about. I clearly state that im no longer a Trump supporter and try to offer some advice on how to get more people to see the light and get nothing but insulted and told off. I don't need a safe space but thank you so much for the suggestion, it really contributed a lot. Maybe you could explain where I tried to limit free speech or the republicans, I hadn't heard about that but I'm admittedly not 100% up to date on all of the scandals and bullshit going on. [SEP] > and try to offer some advice   So why are you allowed to do this, yet you (not other members of your party, you specifically did exactly this) call liberals "condescending" for doing so?  > get nothing but insulted and told off.   I am sick of re-stating this... Do me a favor and please tell your friends. Stating facts is not insulting. Asking for a source on a ridiculous claim that you made is not a personal attack. Nobody else but you has anything to do with your thin skin. You choosing to get upset and play the victim when faced with reality is not something that anybody else has a part in. You, and you alone, have a choice in this.  Nobody insulted you, they only pointed out your hypocrisy . But since being wrong isn't something you'd like to admit, you whine about it and pretend that you were "told off."
There may well be multiple universes, which would form a context, but pretty much all current models indicate that there isn't anything space is expanding into, and there's no such thing as seeing out of the universe. It's not that we can't conprehend what it would be like to look outside; the universe is infinite. [SEP] > It's not that we can't conprehend what it would be like to look outside; the universe is infinite.  This is where physicists divorce themselves from the ability to philosophize.  The universe absolutely exists within some context. Observation cannot address that point in any way whatsoever, and that's okay. But when the point is disregarded entirely, you get religion. I prefer to acknowledge it, and to be comfortable with it. Certain aspects of a closed system can't be observed from inside. So it goes.  There may well be multiple universes. Or the universe could be expanding into something, but, if it is, it's not a something that we can describe with current English, math, or any other comprehensible means of conveying information. Or the universe could actually be infinite, and the notion of expanding "into" something irrelevant/inapplicable.  This is one of a very short list of questions that can't (and most likely will never) be answered by empirical observation. That lack of an answer is very upsetting to huge numbers of people, and that's my beef. We all need to be able to shrug at this, acknowledge that it's interesting, and move past it.  Anyway, speculation about the state of the universe before the Big Bang, speculation about whatever might exist "beyond" the universe, all of that will always be speculation, based on precious little evidence. It doesn't bother me, but it doesn't get talked about a whole lot. It strikes me as the one major question to which folks would rather condescend than say, "We have no blazing idea, and it couldn't possibly be less important."
By 'something' I mean 'the system'.   How? If we voice our opinions and tell the truth instead of ignoring the politicians maybe we can achieve something. [SEP] >If we voice our opinions and tell the truth instead of ignoring the politicians maybe we can achieve something.  Because people don't voice opinions already? Because people aren't already looking for and sharing whatever "truth" they can find? Because people are currently ignoring politicians?  The more and more time I spend evaluating the "truth" movement the more I realize how condescending the whole thing is. The whole "movement" is based on the presumption that most people are "sheeple"; if you want to preach "truths" you might as well tell everyone you know that they're a moron and wrong about everything while you're one of the few that actually knows what's going on...
>By this logic it is impossible to create a game without OP weapons.  It is impossible, because that's what OP means. Look it up please, rather than just inventing your own definition... And that's not at all what this is about.  But yet again you're just trying to derail the discussion so you can say 'I'm right'. Because that is not at all what I'm trying to say and I don't care about the M16, I care about OP weapons being sold in the DLC. If the m16 is OP it might be annoying but it's not the worst since you could always just use it. Where as if the weapon is DLC you're forced to spend money in order to use it. You just bring up the m16 as an example and I decided to expand on that because you didn't really know what OP means.  >If you want to start insulting I don't need to keep discussing.  Did I actually insult you? I said you'd be a dumbass if you believed DLC does not affect those that didn't buy it, which was what I was originally saying by the way. Yet...  >Never said you are not affected. Of course you are  You don't seem to believe that. Or well... You kinda did. Because you said that if you didn't like the DLC you could just not buy it and forget about the whole thing, which is why I started to tell you why it's not that simple. And... Thanks for agreeing with me I guess? I don't even know what you're saying anymore...  >If you cant stand hearing different opinions then fine let's leave it here.  I can stand hearing other opinions fine, I just can't stand hearing nonsense and made up definitions...  Anyway, if you want to leave it here, I'm fine with that. I doubt you're the kinda guy to admit he's wrong so if you're going to be that stubborn atleast don't waste time. [SEP] >It is impossible, because that's what OP means.  OP isn't a defined term. There is no big book of internet slang. You say I try to derail a discussion to say "I'm right", while claiming your defintion is the only viable. Let's just agree upon a definition to understand each other better and move on.  "It is impossible, because that's what OP means." This sentence makes no sense to me. Please explain.  >Did I actually insult you?  No, did I actually say you did? You are pretty condescending and you basically said "If you dont agree with me here you are a dumbass". Sure I agree with you, but respectful discussion looks different.  > You don't seem to believe that.  Thanks for telling me what I believe. Anyway there is hardly a logical connection between saying "If you dont like it, dont buy it" and "You are affected by bad DLC policies." We agree on that the whole time.   > I don't even know what you're saying anymore...  Maybe ask if you think you misunderstand me.   >I just can't stand hearing nonsense and made up definitions...  Maybe it is nonsense to you because you didn't fully understand what I was saying. The best thing is to ask then, if something is nonsense to you. "Made up definitions": Again, where am I wrong on my definitions and give me the standard Oxford definition of that. Or instead spare yourself the hassle and tell me what you mean, so I can understand you.  >I doubt you're the kinda guy to admit he's wrong  Be so kind and tell me where I am wrong. I mean factually wrong.
No it is likability, authenticity and charisma. Like him or not, Trump is completely authentic and he has charisma. He's disgusting and unlikable but charisma and authenticity go a long way. Hillary is fake, arrogant, unlikable and has the charisma of a wet noodle. And Hillary avoided dealing with real voters like the plague whereas Trump thrived on meeting with real voters. People noticed that especially in states like Iowa where Hillary's standoffish behavior became a huge liability for her. [SEP] > Hillary avoided dealing with real voters like the plague  Even when they managed to get in front of her, she was condescending and tried to get rid of them as soon as possible so she could continue her speech to her wealthy donors.
>>Vote for my candidate or you're a moron who doesn't accept reality.  that's not what i said, liar  VOTE. for anyone, third party, write in, and you're fine in my book  do you understand me?  as for trump, he is a racist narcissistic shitbag  and according to you, because i don't like trump... drum roll please... now i'm magically responsible for someone voting for trump?  because of my "tone"?  are you saying this country is populated by immature socially retarded teenagers? "daddy is mean and said don't smoke crack so i'm going to"  how the fuck, in any universe, does my "tone" make me responsible for what someone else does?  [SEP] >how the fuck, in any universe, does my "tone" make me responsible for what someone else does?  Tell how anything you just said in that little incoherent rant is supposed to carry any intellectual weight. Tell me how it positively adds to the "vote Hillary" argument. You not liking Trump doesn't make you responsible, your mouth foam post on Reddit doesn't make you responsible, nor does your lack of coherency.   The attitude of everyone being a moron who isn't vehemently on my side is what makes you responsible. No one wants to associate with a condescending prick. 
As a son of a quantum physicist who spent his whole life studying physics and how things work...  Those buildings fell exactly how you would expect them to if....  The supports were in a high temperature fire for an extended period of time.   There is even a fun little activity you can try at home. Get together a set of books you don't want anymore, something useless, maybe that 1980s encyclopedia britanica you got in the basement. Save toilet paper rolls for about 2 months, or 2 weeks if your wife is like mine. You'll about 24 of them.  Go out in your drive way. If it isn't smooth and flat, put down a book, otherwise stack 4 rolls, one on each corner, then a book, then repeat until you are out of supplies. You should at least get 5-6 stories up.  Now stand back and look at it, it is structurally sound. If you were an ant you could work in that thing for weeks and weeks and nothing would go wrong, you could even load up heavy equipment and do banking and such.  Now take some lighter fluid, give it a squirt someplace 1-2 stories down from the top. If your is tall enough, 3 stories down. But at least >60% of the way up. Light the lighter fluid.  Stand back and watch.  This is what will happen. The fire will weaken the tubes on the floor its on, eventually to the point where the tubes will no longer be able to support the weight of the floors above. When they go they will buckle first, causing the tower to fall downward, instead of over. Once the weight of the upper floors hit the floor below the fire, the momentum of their falling will be greater than the strength of the tubes to support and one or more tubes will also buckle, causing that floor to fall also.  That chain reaction will continue until maybe only the last floor will remain, it will also diverge from center as one side buckles more than the other. (this happens because the diameter of your tubes is large compared to the size of your books. If you could get 5 foot square books and half inch diameter tubes the divergence would be much less)  It is the exact same process that happened to the trade centers on 9/11.    [SEP] >It is the exact same process that happened to the trade centers on 9/11.  Either you are full of shit about knowing anything about physics or you are being incredibly condescending because the process you described is absolutely nothing like a building collapsing.  I don't think the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition by the way. Your experiment just doesn't prove anything at all, apart from when ignited, cardboard no longer supports a book.
I read through a few of the links in there, none of them support your argument at all.  In fact specifically the most recent one from NASA proposes a multi-decade timeline of testing various techniques and technologies.  Have you actually read this stuff at all? [SEP] >In fact specifically the most recent one from NASA proposes a multi-decade timeline of testing various techniques and technologies.  Yes, and we are currently involved in that type of testing. We're sort of in the middle.   There's no reason why we it is necessary to be landing and taking off from Mars using mutli-ton payloads for 20+ years before humans get there. That's a later objective, closer to the people.  >Have you actually read this stuff at all?   Is it meant to be condescending?
>At no point did you mention the hours being the calculation for Main+Extras.  And at no point did I use different measure for Zelda and Witcher 3. I used the Main + Extras for both games and you felt the need to put the Completionist length for Zelda.  >Since you said nothing about what calculation you were using I assumed you were going with completionist (aka 100%) because it makes more sense when comparing how much content a game offers. It makes no sense to compare how much time it takes to complete different arbitrary % of 2 games.  I used Main + Extras because I felt like that would be the average experience a player might get (without collectibles and such). I used the same measure for both games. You "corrected" the Zelda length while leaving the Witcher 3 length as is for some reason.  > You did say you couldn't buy them seperate but I was saying that if you can't buy them seperately it makes no sense to say DLC 2 costs the full 20€ in that comparison.  But you can't buy them separately. There is no hypothetical here because we are comparing the amount of content per dollar. Imagining prices would make the whole calculation more arbitrary than it already is. Regardless, I already mentioned that the DLCs can't be bought separate, only a child would need a calculation of how much the DLC would cost separate (uhh what is 20 divided by 2???)  >I do agree that Blood and Wine is a better bang for your buck, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.  Weren't even talking about Blood and Wine. I was saying that the amount of content (LENGTH) is higher in HoS than in BotW DLC 2. That's it. [SEP] Why would you use main+extras when it's completely different from one game to another how representative of the total content it is?  I didn't correct how many hours of content HoS had because I didn't know you were using main+extras in the first place :/  >Weren't even talking about Blood and Wine  You brought up Blood and Wine, not I. You said it had 60h of content for $25. If you want to bring up the length of the content and just that then don't bring up the price.   You brought up the price because the length itself wasn't what you were talking about, you were pointing out the length of the content in regards to the price. Precisely because you can't buy them seperate is why I even pointed out that you can't disregard half the content included in that price when making such a comparison.  At no point was I asking how much DLC 2 would be worth, despite your condescending response to a question nobody asked there is no reason why DLC 1 and DLC 2 should be priced equally.
I dunno, I really liked it personally. It actually challenged my world view. I have always been atheist and at times have been a bit smug about it (not full /r/atheism smug, but still somewhat smug). That film made me appreciate the value in faith, and what it could do for people. It made me realise that while logic worked for me, it was okay if other people took a different approach. That I didn't need to force my beliefs on other people, or make them feel small for disagreeing.  I'm exaggerating for effect - I was never as bad as a lot of atheists, but it did make me see the nuances between the two belief systems, and become more accepting of different world views.  I think it was a little heavy handed and expositiony at the end, and could have done with expressing these themes in a more subtle way, but I did find the themes resonated with me. [SEP] >That film made me appreciate the value in faith, and what it could do for people.   That was the problem with it for me, its uber-heavy-handed message is meant to 'prove god', but only goes so far as to prove 'the need for god' and even then all it says is that reality is scary and hard to deal with, so you should intentionally delude yourself with something you know isn't true because you're too fragile to deal with it. Therapist's worst nightmare.    That was its entire point. The fact that religious people found this an affirmation of their faith I find astounding because at best it's saying they are self-deluded and weak. (And as an aside, I read this while still Christian).   The first half of the book I thought was wonderful, especially when he was describing his views on zoos, it was thought-provoking and interesting. Then it was dull. Then it was heavy-handed and quite condescending. 
I don't mean to be rude, but you've given one example, and a very small country at that. Remember that the original article and the comment to which we are all responding was about human rights. I find it very amusing that everyone here has automatically equated democracy with human rights, but countries like India are proving that it is just not that simple. India is a democracy with a capitalist market, and it still can't guarantee everyone's human rights, especially not those of women.   Therefore, while I am certainly not offering a solution, I am saying that repeating "Hong Kong" over and over again certainly isn't either.  [SEP] >I find it very amusing that everyone here has automatically equated democracy with human rights, but countries like India are proving that it is just not that simple.  I wonder if you have any awareness of how snotty and condescending you appear when you find other people's misunderstandings "amusing".   You'd stand a much better chance of reaching them if you didn't portray yourself as chortling while gazing down at them through a monocle.
>> Well, there's pretty good evidence that they do own the copyright, and that any licenses have been terminated. >  > Are the copyrights even being questioned? This whole issue arose from the use of trademarks.   P&F's counterclaims are based on their copyright, and Stardock is questioning it.  > And why would a license to sell games between P&F and "current trademark holder" be okay when it's Atari, but suddenly not okay when it's Stardock?  Which license are you referring to: The original 1988 exclusive one with Accolade, or the 2011 non-exclusive one with GoG and Atari?  The original 1988 license granted essentially total control over the Ur-Quan universe, and had several clauses that appear to have terminated it long ago. The 2011 one was much more limited, non-exclusive, and could be canceled on demand, and was cancelled by Paul once relations with Brad soured. (Note the difference between these licenses, because it'll be important later).  >> If the emails Brad has shown us from October 2017 are the complete conversation, I do agree that they could have spelled out their legal basis more clearly. But I give them some leeway in their tone there, because the claim Brad made when they told him they were planning to do another game (that he had exclusive control over their copyright via the original 1988 agreement) really came out of the blue, and he kept doubling down on it, even after checking with his lawyers.   > Sorry, I don't know if I'm parsing this second sentence correctly.   I was referring there to the relatively curt tone in Fred's later emails.  > And they didn't have any misgivings about Stardock working on their own game for the majority of the project's life.  True, because Stardock was giving every impression that it was not going to use any elements from SC2, specifically committing to not using the aliens and lore.    > To me, it looked like P&F kept underestimating what rights Stardock actually had, or what the actual restrictions would be.   The final addendum to P&F's contract with Accolade had defined Paul's IP as "source code, names (of starships and alien races), characters, plot lines, setting, terminology unique to the Star Control products, and music", so from what I can tell, that's what they were expecting Stardock to honor.  > So they kept replying with favorable and supportive emails. Up until the 11th hour of the anniversary, when Brad emailed them with "I think there is confusion on what rights Stardock has". And then the fight started...  Right, because it was in that email that Brad first said anything to them that indicated that he was claiming the power to do more than sell the old games, and make a new "Star Control" game that wasn't connected in any way with SC1&2. Remember that there had been two different licenses. In that email, he said for the first time that he had the publishing rights from the original 1988 agreement, which was essentially an "I control everything" statement. So there are a few emails there where Brad keeps insisting that he has all these powers, and P&F are basically going "WTF? That license is 16 years dead!"  >> Well, a lot of the ire directed at Stardock stem from Brad's tendency to get on forums and say bellicose things like "If any future games come out that continue the UQM story, it will happen under Stardock's supervision or not at all." . >  > Did no one call him out on it there? Or ask him to explain what that meant? It looks like he's either angry or putting his foot down. Is he only referring to the trademark?  His position is that the "Star Control" trademark also gives him control over all of the names used inside the game. I and others are skeptical that his claims on this will hold up, but if they do, he would have exclusive use of the names "Ur-Quan", "Arilou", etc. Since those are kind of essential to the setting, he would effectively have veto power over anyone continuing the story from SC2.   > Paul and Fred, while they are attacking Stardock's trademark, aren't actually doing anything that would keep Stardock from making its game, even if they win. At most, it would have to keep elements from the earlier games out of SC:O. >  > The game hasn't been stopped outright, but they have started making demands of things to be removed or changed ever since the hostility started. Things that would have been okay before the fighting started. How long would it have had to continue? There was no telling when they'd stop or be appeased.  Well, if SC:O is clearly not using anything from SC2, it would be safe. Here, I think they could stand to show some flexibility. We know they asked Brad not to use "Super-Melee", and that doesn't seem important enough to fight over. And they don't own the copyright to the music, so they don't really have grounds to make an issue of it. I think the main thing they're concerned about is that they don't want someone building the SC2 ships (or the entire SC2 universe) in SC:O, and if Brad would commit to that, I hope P&F wouldn't sweat the smaller stuff.   > It'd certainly help to humanize [P&F] through this process, if they talked. Everything from them seems so sterilized, pre-canned, and PR'fied, like they were running for office or something.   Maybe it just rubs me differently, but I find their posts humorously snarky. As for talking, well, most lawyers would tell their clients that when they're in the middle of a lawsuit, they shouldn't be talking publicly. Paul is taking his lawyer's advice. Brad seems to have decided otherwise. Which is fine, but it's going to be a two-edged sword; having chosen to engage, Brad gets the benefits of being able to try to frame the narrative without P&F making much of a response. However, this also opens him to being fact-checked and criticized over any real or apparent discrepancies in his story.  > And yeah, abusing the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" adage. I want to see all the forms that P&F submitted.  I'm not sure what you mean here.   > I'd basically ask them to explain their decisions to the things I wrote about here.   Obviously, I can't answer for them, but I'll guess on a couple...  > Why did they turn down the first offer of the trademark transfer?  They were probably contractually tied to Activision making Skylanders, and couldn't have used the trademark if they bought it. Since trademarks die if not used, they passed. Plus, they were clearly under the impression (still to be tested in court), that the "Star Control" trademark had no power except over the title of a game. Since they didn't plan to call their new game "Star Control", they didn't really care about the trademark.  > Why did they not ask for a concrete explanation of what rights Stardock had at that time?   They thought they knew. Stardock had bought the 2011 license from GoG, which granted the right to distribute, market, and promote the old games, just as his email said. Brad gave them no sign that he was also claiming the far broader powers from the 1988 exclusive agreement until they told him of their plans to do a new game.  I am currently still giving Brad the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that he sincerely thought he had the 1988 agreement's powers the whole time, and the 2013 email exchange was just an honest miscommunication. But the fact that he only started claiming these powers right after he learned that Paul and Fred would be making a competing game gives me cause to have some doubts, especially since he's never given any credible explanation as to why his lawyers said he could make those claims at all. [SEP] Alright, I apologize upfront, but I've already spent 6 hours trying to reply to every single message in my inbox here, and it's past midnight now. Very rapidly running out of energy and motivation to reply. So if I don't respond to every point, then I concede whatever to you.  > I was referring there to the relatively curt tone in Fred's later emails.  That's why communication is so important. Things like rights must absolutely be nailed down, like requirements. And if there seems to be a gap in communication, get everything cleared. Don't just keep barreling on ahead. And definitely don't keep poking and testing the limits of what's permissible until it's too late.  > True, because Stardock was giving every impression that it was not going to use any elements from SC2, specifically committing to not using the aliens and lore.  They originally weren't going to, just as a courtesy to Paul and Fred, until this fighting started.  > The final addendum to P&F's contract with Accolade had defined Paul's IP as "source code, names (of starships and alien races), characters, plot lines, setting, terminology unique to the Star Control products, and music", so from what I can tell, that's what they were expecting Stardock to honor.  Well, they have the source code and the plot lines at the least. They don't have the music. And it's turning out that they couldn't have the names. So was this even an enforceable clause in that contract? If they didn't have this contract, would they have any other corroboration in the legal system to prove they own what they own?  > His position is that the "Star Control" trademark also gives him control over all of the names used inside the game. I and others are skeptical that his claims on this will hold up, but if they do, he would have exclusive use of the names "Ur-Quan", "Arilou", etc. Since those are kind of essential to the setting, he would effectively have veto power over anyone continuing the story from SC2.  I would just like to say that this is the result of what happens when everyone wants to actually see where the lines in the sand are drawn. Even if he implicitly had those rights, there was no need to exercise them until the lawsuit. Now it's turning out that names don't fall under copyrights, they fall under trademarks. And his lawyers are advising him that he needs to trademark those names now to prove it.  > Maybe it just rubs me differently, but I find their posts humorously snarky.  To me, their posts comes across as condescendingly snide.  > They were probably contractually tied to Activision making Skylanders, and couldn't have used the trademark if they bought it. Since trademarks die if not used, they passed. Plus, they were clearly under the impression (still to be tested in court), that the "Star Control" trademark had no power except over the title of a game. Since they didn't plan to call their new game "Star Control", they didn't really care about the trademark.  Their emails confirmed that they couldn't start working on a game while working for Activision, but certainly they could have taken the trademark and kept it active with anything. Make another phone app or something. And if it did expire, wouldn't they have common law rights to it?  > They thought they knew. Stardock had bought the 2011 license from GoG, which granted the right to distribute, market, and promote the old games, just as his email said. Brad gave them no sign until 2017 that he was also claiming the far broader powers from the 1988 exclusive agreement.  That's when they should have asked some lawyers about it, or get clarification from Stardock. Ignorance is no excuse from the law.  > I am currently still giving Brad the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that he sincerely thought he had the 1988 agreement's powers the whole time, and the 2013 email exchange was just an honest miscommunication. But the fact that he only started claiming these powers right after he learned that Paul and Fred would be making a competing game gives me cause to have some doubts, especially since he's never given any credible explanation as to why his lawyers said he could make those claims at all.  Brad knew they had planned to create a game, right from the beginning. He just didn't know the date they would make an announcement until right beforehand. "Competing" would only be if they tried to assert their game as the true sequel, especially around the timing of the SCO beta. And there were avenues around that issue that could have completely avoided it.  He only starting having to put on the lawyer hat after Fred emails him 48 hours before the reveal of their own game, and showed no sign of respecting the trademark. Then on the day of the reveal, they refuse to be dissuaded despite Brad's emails and explanations. They had several opportunities to resolve this peacefully, but by that time, Fred and Paul's minds had been made up and they didn't want to discuss it. So everyone smiled for the camera in public that day, but the fighting had already begun behind the scenes.
It's not impossible to rebuild an entire town that doesn't exist in the child timeline, but oh boy if you think that isn't a stretch.  > If they're trying to make Hyrule look so similar to OoT/TP, why is there a coast?  What when did I say this. I never said this.  And again, the temple of time is THE temple of time.  Oh and the great plateau is said to be "Where hyrule was founded a long long time ago".  It's so obviously the same hyrule.  Oh and there's death mountain.  Oh and faron woods.  Oh and lake hylia.  Oh and they're all in the same locations relative to each other. [SEP] >What when did I say this. I never said this.  >The ruins of OoT and TP castle town are clearly meant to be the exact same towns.  Feel free to correct me, but it sounds like you're saying the ruins in BotW are meant to be towns from OoT/TP, which would mean BotW's Hyrule is intended to look like Hyrule from those games.  Death Mountain could have easily remained from Dragonroost Island, which a lot of people thought was supposed to be Death Mountain pre-Wind Waker.  >It's so obviously the same hyrule.  Hey look, you're saying it again. You're saying it's the same Hyrule when you're making a case for it, but when I bring up the huge inconsistency of the coast, you're denying you said that.  Also, you can say what you need to without being condescending. It's not impressive or appreciated.  You seem really rigid on your stance that it's the same Hyrule and I don't get why. All I've been saying is there's reason to doubt that, not that this is 100% forrealandfortrue post-flood era.
Blizz does not care about competitive hearthstone at all...  It's just advertising for their game on Twitch.   Blizz's goal is to make the most money possible by appealing to the lowest common denominator.  [SEP] > lowest common denominator  I find your implication that people who enjoy watching/playing with Yogg are somehow less intelligent or otherwise inferior pretty damn condescending.
It's too much feminism actually.  Like any idyllic movement, boogiemen and strawmen are created to push an agenda.  Let's be perfectly clear here:  >That in order to gain respect from men, I need to give AMAZING blowjobs.  No man ever said this to you. Feminism said this to you.  Think about that very carefully. [SEP] > Feminism said this to you. > Think about that very carefully.  Well you've provided such a convincing argument, and delivered it not at all condescendingly, so I'm sure she'll think hard on that one. 
You probably don't realize it but you are case in point of what I am talking about and why misleading information is a problem.   Hamstrung the defense by using a law (that you probably don't understand), that simply requires some evidence to support the person they wish to implicate instead of the accused(amazing, defense investigators and all, not a damn thing was found). Right. Yeah, the defense was hamstrung. Do a little independent research and you'll see that things weren't nearly as 1 sided as MaM has the masses believing. Somehow, I don't expect you'll do it though. So much easier to just criticize, and bitch about things you only half understand. I'm simply laying facts out. Dispute what I said. I've got facts and evidence that lewd me to my position. You've got suspicion and speculation. And a film, you've got that too, whatever that's worth. [SEP] > You probably don't realize it but you are case in point of what I am talking about and why misleading information is a problem. >  > Hamstrung the defense by using a law (that you probably don't understand)  >Do a little independent research and you'll see that things weren't nearly as 1 sided as MaM has the masses believing. Somehow, I don't expect you'll do it though. So much easier to just criticize, and bitch about things you only half understand.   >You've got suspicion and speculation. And a film, you've got that too, whatever that's worth.  Could you be any more of a condescending prick if you tried? It's a shame we can't all be as smart as you, then we could "rewd" what you've read and be "lewd" to the same position as you.
Sheeple? Really? [SEP] > Sheeple? Really?  Of course. Because being condescending makes him right. Right? 
Actually it's more like "you're a young kid with no life experience, no responsibilities and no fucking clue yet about how the world works...so quit acting like your opinion matters or that you are somehow on the same level because you aren't...yet".  Punk kids raised by idiot parents think they ought to be treated like adults. Its pathetic. [SEP] > "you're a young kid with no life experience, no responsibilities and no fucking clue yet about how the world works...so quit acting like your opinion matters or that you are somehow on the same level because you aren't...yet"  So Macron is a condescending idiot.
The wealthy elite of America are the one's actually in charge - they won't let anything happen to them. The poor and minorities of America will be shot with no repercussions on the shooter, racist cops pardoned by the pres., the homeless die on the streets and if you want a home you've got to pony up more cash you're gonna make all year.   But that's got nothing to do with Trump. It's been that way for decades - or worse. [SEP] > The wealthy elite of America are the one's actually in charge - they won't let anything happen to them.  No. It would be pathetically easy for the middle-class to seize power from the 1%. We're just too busy bitching about abortion, "heritage," and immigration on the right. Shit like "mansplaining," the DNC, and whether the minimum wage should be raised to $15, or only $13 on the left.  The middle-class of America is not some puppet controlled by the elite. We're an autonomous group that can make our own choices. The choice we've made is to shoot ourselves in the foot and prioritize petty squabbles an selfishness over improving the lot of the majority of Americans.
I never said I find it beneath me. I even told Drummerboy that his compassion is in the right place. I was simply sharing something that happened to my partner and I. I didn't call anyone an idiot. My aunt was murdered on Christmas day of 2010, I don't call murder victims idiots.   Take your melodramatic, half sissy ass the fuck out of here. Seriously.  [SEP] > Ok, Hero. take it easy.  > I never said I find it beneath me.    You couldn't have been more condescending. Take your butthurt, irrational ass out of here. Seriously.
Adnan did have contact with Hae that day, so theoretically his DNA could show up regardless of his involvement.  That being said, I highly doubt there is any DNA present, belonging to anyone.   If I was Adnan, I would only test the kit as my final option. It’s a crapshoot. [SEP] > Adnan did have contact with Hae that day, so theoretically his DNA could show up regardless of his involvement.  Thank you. I appreciate you acknowledging this.   I typed that, then realized it probably sounds really condescending, but I mean it genuinely. I feel that it's difficult at times for innocenters and guilters to acknowledge points on either side, and so I do appreciate it. 
>It isn't an either or proposition  And yet even though medical records are sealed, it's still perfectly legal and reasonable to issue a fitness test to qualify someone for a physical job? Why do you think that finances are a separate issue? You seem perfectly happy to use medical records as a rationale to restrict credit checks.  >You didn't address my response. Does that mean you acknowledge the the stark differences between a medical evaluation (are you physically capable of performing this job now) vs. medical records.  The primary difference between a financial record and a medical record is agency. You are in control of your financial records, as you choose to take on every debt...and you are most often not in control of your medical conditions. This is the same distinction why using your criminal record to deny you a job is reasonable, but using your race is not. You have a personal responsibility to your financial records,but that's often not the case medically.  Now one issue that I will nip in the ass because I know you'll bring it up. Medical debt on credit reports. No, I do not think medical debt should appear on credit reports and I think our entire medical system and they way it sucks money out of private individuals sucks and is disgusting, but that's an entirely separate issue that needs its own resolution.  >I don't know where you are getting this. First, the FTC mandated that consumers are allowed a free credit score because, while the scoring companies are legally responsible to fix errors, these errors are often not found until the consumer checks.  You answered your own question. Yes, you have a personal responsibility to check for errors on your credit reports. I know there is a general trend for this generation to want to complain continuously about taking any personal responsibility for anything, but for fuck sake, handle your shit.  >So back to the crux of the issue, regardless of the kind of record, how much information is enough? How much is enough to give that company reasonable assurances they are hiring a decent candidate vs. protecting individual privacy? More and more information is going to be available on us, and in more readily available forms, as time goes on. Companies are always going to want more.   Slippery slope fallacy. Credit checks have been around for decades and they are nearly as rare now as they were 30 years ago for jobs. There is no indication that is changing.  [SEP] > And yet even though medical records are sealed, it's still perfectly legal and reasonable to issue a fitness test to qualify someone for a physical job? Why do you think that finances are a separate issue? You seem perfectly happy to use medical records as a rationale to restrict credit checks.  A medical evaluation looks directly at your ability to currently perform the job. A look into past medical records or credit checks does not.  > Yes, you have a personal responsibility to check for errors on your credit reports. I know there is a general trend for this generation to want to complain continuously about taking any personal responsibility for anything, but for fuck sake, handle your shit.  You can fuck off with that condescending generational nonsense. I'm middle-aged and quite responsible with my credit and my personal score is most definitely not a concern (800+). A complaint about the credit score being problematic and keeping track of this isn't really a personal responsibility issue; I'm not asking them to track this nor is it really my responsibility to fix their screw-ups. It is their responsibility to fix these, legally, they just don't have the ability to know when they have so it falls to the individual to do so. 5% of people with errors that would likely prevent a loan is not an error rate I am happy with. And you also seem to act like this once a year check is all you need. Do you save that once a year to check right before a planned credit score usage? What happens if there is something bad on their for just 6 months? Do you know how long it takes to sometimes clear these up?  I'm glad you don't think medical bankruptcy, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy of late, should block that job. Well, it can. And these aren't the only hard luck cases. Poor credit scores can happen from a variety of reasons. For example, you didn't touch on the young person. I can attest to that one; being young, a few late bills combined with no loan or credit card history made for a very bad score. What if this had prevented me from acquiring my first "real" job a couple decades back? You can look at my working life from then and easily see that, poor credit score or not, I was personally a very good bet.  > Slippery slope fallacy. Credit checks have been around for decades and they are nearly as rare now as they were 30 years ago for jobs. There is no indication that is changing.  There was no fallacy because I didn't say the rate of checks was increasing (I don't know if it is). Read. I said information in general available online is increasing. Society needs to decide how much employers get to access. They already must get our permission to run the credit check and some states have already prevented employers from using this. 
you just don't understand women as people, prefer them as props. most men do, some women are ok with it.  at some point PR has a character explaining why, from Denna's point of view, or from ANY woman's point of view, it would be madness to start a relationship with Kvothe. no self respecting woman would start a relationship with Kvothe, he's not boyfriend material, but he's your hero and you want him to be a winner. I get that.  [SEP] > you just don't understand women as people, prefer them as props.  > most men do, some women are ok with it.  Seriously? I mean, this has to be one of the most condescending and insulting series of assumptions I've ever read.
>If you want to define "racism" as any kind of outward actualization of prejudice, then just about everyone is racist  YAY, NOW WERE GETTING IT!!!  >Can we have a civil discussion here  So you (The one having the audacity to question the fact that racism played a role in this mess) wants to talk about civility?  Let me guess, another white guy who wants to say for the millionth time (because you guys seem to love saying this shit)....  That "Oh Noes Silly! Racism didn't play a factor!". Did You learn that from your grandparents? We know for you guys, owning other human-beings is just a past-time and the good ole' days.    >Defining racism in such a way as to include these inevitable human feelings is not productive.  FEELZ OVER REALZ! [SEP] >YAY, NOW WERE GETTING IT!!!  You're being really condescending.   >So you (The one having the audacity to question the fact that racism played a role in this mess) wants to talk about civility?  I never said that racism didn't play a role in "this mess". It did. I'm saying that most Trump supporters are only tangentially involved in that racism stuff, and that we need to stop lumping them in with the likes of Richard Spencer if we want to win them over. 
>Those attempts have been deliberately sabotaged by the ANC in order to seize power.  The ANC have always had power. They don’t have to ‘seize’ it and if they had conducted themselves properly, they wouldn’t be in danger of losing it.  > It means you're putting too much faith on them.  As opposed to putting faith in the ANC? I would rather put my faith in China.  >Mining requires engineering and knowledge...  Well of course. I assumed the reader would know I didn’t equate it with digging ditches.  >Judging by your racist rant,  The last refuge of a racist – accuse others of racism. What was ‘racist’ about my ‘rant’?   [SEP] > They don’t have to ‘seize’ it  So if the population was educated (as they had promised) and the press was free and unbiased, we'd see the same turnouts we nowadays see? Wake up.   > As opposed to putting faith in the ANC? I would rather put my faith in China.  Because the ANC isn't in bed with the PRC.  > What was ‘racist’ about my ‘rant’?  Your condescending hopelessness.   
If you'll read my original comment it was specifically that it can be depleted, not that it is depleted. My point is that we shouldn't be making the same mistakes as the western part of the country.  [SEP] >If you'll read my original comment it was specifically that it can be depleted, not that it is depleted.    That's weird, because my question was where is the proof it is being depleted, and then you condescendingly posted that link. How could I have misunderstood?   Edit: and by the way, is your issue with this that Nestle is selling the water without giving us a cut, or that people are using the water in general? Sure, plastic water bottles are wasteful, but it's not like the water itself is being wasted. If you live in Michigan and use your sprinklers, you're also potentially depleting our water supply. At least water bottles are used for hydrating people. 
Don't forget how people who have their hair styled differently, or even have tuned their car up... are all douchebags.  Seriously it makes me wonder if most redditors are really sad, overweight & angry guys, who have bowl cuts & wear clothes their mom buys them. They also don't have cars or motorcycles.... In other words: One sad sad motherfucker, & I didn't even talk about their """"sex life"""". [SEP] >sad, overweight & angry guys, who have bowl cuts & wear clothes their mom buys them. They also don't have cars or motorcycles.... In other words: One sad sad motherfucker, & I didn't even talk about their """"sex life"""".  Yeah, you sound like a shallow, condescending idiot here. Why is it that reddit-users seemingly have to turn 180 whenever there's some social phenomenon we can't fully support at any given moment?
Obviously I'm prepared to be downvoted for saying so, but I think a lot of the hatred for Catelyn is rooted in misogyny. It's the same reason everyone hates Skylar White and Lori Grimes. You're just not allowed to have complex female characters, especially not in television. [SEP] >you're just now allowed to have complex female characters.  So Dany, Brienne, Arya, and Sansa, 4 very complex and loved female characters don't count?  And what about Cersei? She's a fantastic villain.  People didn't like Catelyn because she acts ridiculous all the time. She hates Jon through a prejudice that he took no part in, she's condescending and looks down on Brienne because "there's nobody as unfortunate as an ugly woman."  People love LSH because it means justice for what happened with the Red Wedding and to Ned Stark, finally. It doesn't mean they suddenly like Catelyn, it means they're excited for what she represents.
Or the majority have been banned from every other political sub because they’re not liberals ready to slit their wrists over trump?  [SEP] > Or the majority have been banned from every other political sub   banned by the moderators? for being trolls? for asking questions without being condescending?  since its "the majority," care to show any examples of innocent behavior that was banned?
Iceland is a separate governing entity that is free to make its own decision outside US law. It may seem like a small victory, but mountains are not moved in one day.  Also, the day Iceland has the population of the US, you can claim that their number of votes is silly. I do believe that a little concept called PROPORTIONS gets put into play. In case you're not understanding, it was obviously enough votes to vote them into office. The people and interests the party represents are now OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED IN AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BODY OF GOVERNMENT.  I know in 'murka, we are taught that if it isn't a Hail Mary pass or absolute decimation of the other side, it isn't a victory. In the real world, however, small victories are where it's at. The battle for civil rights wasn't won in one decisive victory, it was small victories and it was many if them.  [SEP] >Iceland is a separate governing entity that is free to make its own decision outside US law.  Really? I thought my post was very clear on how I think the US should invade Iceland...  ^^^/sarcasm  I just used a US analogy since I thought that would make it easier to understand. I'm not an american. I know that Iceland is a country. It is very clear from the article that Iceland is its own country. I never said that it wasn't. I don't know why you are fighting a point I didn't make.  >OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED IN AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BODY OF GOVERNMENT.  There is no need to be condescending, I know what an election is. I didn't think the pirate party was going to be put in a fake alting while all other politicians get put in the real one. I know they have been officially elected, and that they are officially in the althing. I know Iceland is a globally recognized independent nation. I wasn't saying there was anything unofficial about it.  >it was obviously enough votes to vote them into office  I never said it wasn't. I never said "9.5 k votes isn't enough votes to send representatives to the althing". Are you sure you responded to the right post? All your arguments are against points I didn't make.  All I said was that in terms of achievements, this is a very very small one barely worth mentioning. 
I know this will sound silly as well, but it always does to the uneducated.  Here is the real fact, the only fact that matters.  Some people will never treat others the way they legally should unless they're forced to. Period. I know libertarians hate that word, but that's the way it is. [SEP] >the way they legally should  This confuses me greatly.  You know what the whole thing confused me greatly. I really have no idea what you're saying.  It also seemed... condescending? But I guess that doesn't matter.  Perhaps you could phrase it differently.
You said asshole, not me.  Let be more clear since clearly you seem to be too dense to understand what I was saying:  You can make a perfectly valid criticism (which he did) without getting into details most people won't understand or care about (which he did).   As for mixing versus recording, I do know the difference. Do you? She made a (multi-track) recording, and did not mix it. I have made plenty of recordings and not put them through a mixer just to get some shit down on tape. Once again, my take is that's all her goal was. Nothing more.  Do you know what YMMV means? It means, this is how I see it, but you may see it differently. You seem to want to bicker about it, I definitely don't. I didn't disagree with him, but I did disagree with the depth of the criticism. I don't think that was necessary to make the point. So, whatever.   [SEP] >You said asshole, not me.  The comment that started this whole thread called him an asshole. Try to follow along, now.  >You can make a perfectly valid criticism (which he did) without getting into details most people won't understand or care about (which he did).  He hardly posted a thesis on the subject. The details he went into are pretty basic, and he only went into them because somebody responded to "she could use better mixing" with "you're an asshole."  >As for mixing versus recording, I do know the difference. Do you?   For somebody complaining about a "personal wank off," you sure manage to be condescending as hell.  Yes, I have my own share of rough mixes and things hastily recorded just to get an idea down. And that's completely fucking beside the point.
Itt: op and millenials realizing companies try to make a profit. Holy fuck are you stupid enough to think blizzard should give more value than their cost?  [SEP] >Itt: op and millenials realizing companies try to make a profit. Holy fuck are you stupid enough to think blizzard should give more value than their cost?   "Millenial" is a buzzword that (mostly older) people employ to stereotype what is really an extremely diverse group of young people. Older people are historically condescending toward certain aspects of the changing world which they aren't capable of really understanding. Many are just out of the loop so they have to rely on this stereotyping and condescension, often to invent the feeling that youth is a disadvantage to make them feel better about their age while abstracting what would normally take a lot of thought and consideration into a useless stereotype that prevents them from having to think too hard. It's actually ridiculous.  I don't really like Adam Conover(?) much as a performer but he's a smart guy and backs up what he says. He made a decent presentation about this kind of thing.  http    Edit: Here's another that takes a different sort of look at it. Really insightful.  http  
It took people years to understand that MoM is amazing item.  This post would get downvoted if so called pros (who also took a really long time to get over MoM stigma) didn't used it.  So, yeah, reddit is full of shitters who can't think my themselves, who knew? [SEP] >reddit is full of shitters  -Everyone who subs to /r/dota2  Nothing is more precious than 7K mmr fucktards like you putting yourselves on a high horse while browsing the same plebeian subreddit us peasants are.  Condescending morons like you are actually such a plague to reddit. You people possess just the right amount of smug and self-loathe to appear like the most obnoxious pieces of shit there ever were.  The amount of times I read "reddit is full of 2k scrubs" is actually astounding. It's like you have to convince yourself that the people who you disagree with are underneath you before you can spout your opinions.  Grow the fuck up
This sub loves callous derision when it’s directed at people or ideas they don’t agree with. I just happen to make snide remarks about folks they like.  None of which is relevant to the issue, since I didn’t ask for help for me. Not that it should matter, but the person I was trying to help disagrees with me on most things. She’s not vegan, &c.   Y’all talk a good game about civility, but you’re willing to punish an innocent stranger who was wronged simply because she happens to be friends with someone you don’t like. Please tell me more about your moral superiority.   Your fake gravitas and out of context Shakespeare quote is a fucking joke. [SEP] >This sub loves callous derision when it’s directed at people or ideas they don’t agree with.    You must see your own hypocrisy in that statement. You made snide comments about two guys that died a cold, watery, horrible death, who presumably you didn't agree with because of the divide between their and your beliefs. Your comments ("Boo fucking hoo") suggested they 'got what they deserved, no big loss'   That's literally victim blaming.  --------------------------------------------    But you're right, none of that is relevant to this thread. You're receiving negative responses from people in this thread because historically you've made self-righteous and condescending comments towards them.  Surely you can recognize that being an asshole has social consequences, and that being respectful, even to those of differing opinions, can beget respect.  Do unto others, as you would have done to you.  For real, it's an ancient law.   >Y'all  The 20,000 individuals subscribed to this sub are not monolithic. I don't have an answer to your friend's situation, because I don't have legal expertise, but I'm certainly not 'punishing' her. I sincerely hope she finds justice and I hope the couple of on-topic responses are helpful and useful. 
>Please, prove to me that the unhealthy acceptance of obesity doesn't exist outside of tumblr and/or it isn't a problem.  I never made that assertion... so no, I won't try to do that (lol)  >How the hell is it nuanced?  Well, it talks about mental health (which, despite your potential triggered ravings, is certainly a part of the obesity issue).  >The article also talks about healthy and body image.  Exactly. That's the nuance that you're missing and that the article addressed. See? That wasn't hard.  >Don't try to cop out on it.  What, exactly, am I copping out on? Do you need to Google that phrase?  >I'm wasting your time with bullshit? Buddy, you're the one who's arguing about nothing.  No, my argument is that the "fat acceptance" movement is a non-factor in the obesity epidemic. You've done absolutely nothing to refute that point adequately. [SEP] >I never made that assertion... so no, I won't try to do that  So what the fuck is your point you're trying to make?   >Well, it talks about mental health (which, despite your potential triggered ravings, is certainly a part of the obesity issue).  Maybe try to read between the lines and realize that mental health is related to positive body image which is a result of fat acceptance and, look at that, we are back to the topic at hand. That wasn't hard, was it?  >What, exactly, am I copping out on? Do you need to Google that phrase?  Very condescending, I like it. Helps your argument.   >No, my argument is that the "fat acceptance" movement is a non-factor in the obesity epidemic. You've done absolutely nothing to refute that point adequately.  Then prove it? I've done my share of shitty googling, but since basic english is too nuanced for you, maybe you could spend 45 seconds on doing anything to prove your point. Unlikely however. 
This. I sell phones and while I know that in a head-to-head contest, Android blows the iPhone away in functionality and customization, I don't even bother trying to educate iPhone users. They are largely immune to reason. Let them get the phone they're happy with and think they're getting the best phone (poorly stifled laugh).  [SEP] >I know that in a head-to-head contest, Android blows the iPhone away in functionality and customization, I don't even bother trying to educate iPhone users. They are largely immune to reason. Let them get the phone they're happy with and think they're getting the best phone (poorly stifled laugh).  Thank you for demonstrating what a superior, condescending, elitist asshole is actually like. This thread needed some examples.
This clickbait headline has no relevance in today tech landscape. Or as much relevance as John Maeda have in today design landscape. Or as much relate as your reply has to this thread. Or as much sense as your reply has to my comment: None.  ps. do yourself a favour and demistify your holy cows before engage reddit. [SEP] > This clickbait headline has no relevance in today tech landscape.  As someone who has working in the gaming field, advertising and most recently a large corporation working in mobile apps as an engineer. In a career spanning about twenty years, in every one of those roles I 've worked with designers realizing their UI.   You are deluded.   Every designer who couldn't imagine ever bothering to learn the first thing about the technology they are working with is a worthless partner. They don't understand what is possible and it LIMITS them. Every designer I've worked with that "condescends" to getting their hands dirty in code produce consistently better work. I don't expect that they will produce the same quality of code that I do, nor do I expect to ship their code in the product, but it helps them demonstrate their ideas and understand the possibility space in a way that helps ENORMOUSLY.  I'd recommend that every designer working in technology (and very few aren't) pursue at least some level of software development literacy. I wouldn't put my stamp of approval on any portfolio/resume that doesn't contain at least some interest in coding.  Hell at this point knowing how to write at least some code is probably a recommendation i'd give to every human, it's incredibly empowering.
Hmmm. While there arn't to my knowledge any statistics for student turnout specifically I'm sceptical of your claim that they tend to be active voters. The 18-24 age bracket consitently has by far the lowest turnout. Typically 10% lower than even the next lowest turnout age bracket - the 25-34 year olds. Indeed for the 2001 and 2005 elections there was a 30% tunout discrepency between 18-24 year olds those 65+.  I'm sure there's some truth to the slightly condecending ascertion that voting still has some novelty but I'd bet this tends to be more than made up for by the voter registration confusion that comes with moving to a new place to study and the lack of long term connection with that polity.  There may be some localised variation and Brighton may be an anomoly in this respect but if that's the case I don't think chalking it up to students in general being active voters is the answer. [SEP] > The 18-24 age bracket consitently has by far the lowest turnout.  The 18-24 age bracket is not made up entirely of students though.  > I'd bet this tends to be more than made up for by the voter registration confusion that comes with moving to a new place to study  When I was at Uni, each of the halls had their own voter registration processes. It's not that confusing, so who's really being condescending here?  > Brighton may be an anomoly in this respect but if that's the case I don't think chalking it up to students in general being active voters is the answer.  Well, I don't think you're from Brighton whereas the person who is says the Green Party pander to the student vote. His testimony may be anecdotal but it's still better than yours.
Uh, no, you started it with your first comment to me. A for effort though.   [SEP] > A for effort though.  So you are a condescending bitch as well?   HAve fun with that.   Whatever its your life. If you want to be pathetic your choice. And you can call me whatever you want. I know me and you don't and you are just a pathetic loser anyway.   If you have kids, you've already shown you've lost at life.   If you don't yet, well, you probably will someday, which means you lost too. 
I wrote this in another thread regarding these "gamers are dead" articles which talked a little about the Devin Wilson article mentioned here.  There isn't a point in Wilson's article i don't agree with. Gaming needs to change, i know that's not a popular mindset around here and i expect to be downvoted accordingly. But as an aspiring developer and someone who has played games for 20 odd years. I want gaming culture to be better than it is. Devin Wilson's article brings up a great many points in regards to how we can be better. Most of these relating to the maturity of the consumer and the standards to which those consumers hold developers too. I wanna address one particular point brought up in the OP's link.  >There’s plenty of overlap, for example, between my college’s anime club and videogame club.   Can we please stop with the notion that "broader interests" is defined by watching a season or two of Attack on Titan/Evangelion/Full Metal Alchemist/Dragonball Z. Game developers shouldn't be afraid to take on significant cultural problems within today's society. There are a number of real world topics that could be explored in games but aren't because nobody wants to buy a "preachy" game when all they wanna do is kill more soldiers/aliens/demons. Wilson in his article is arguing for an effort to make games dealing with topics beyond who's killing who.  > We put more effort into making games about things other than what we’ve already seen in games.  Spec Ops: The Line and Papers Please are games that represent an effort to do that. They are narratively rich and genuinely thought provoking. But there success is limited because all anyone buys/talks about is BF/CoD/Destiny/whatever other flavour of the month crap is being churned out by EA/Activision.   If arguing for a more mature gaming culture means we see more effort to make games like this then im all for it and will support anyone arguing for it. But it starts with the people buying games. If you demand a higher standard from developers then gaming will become more than it is now. Otherwise the industry will continue to wither on the vein of progress in order to cash in on the easy money that can be made by releasing more FPS nonsense.  [SEP] >There are a number of real world topics that could be explored in games but aren't because nobody wants to buy a "preachy" game when all they wanna do is kill more soldiers/aliens/demons.   And everything else in your post is futile. Most people do not want games to stir their brains, or when they do they look for something specific. Do not expect to raise the bar for all games, just some few as there are now and let people choose. Do not expect everyone to be "educated" by any aspiring game developer or aspiring journalist on their late twenties, it's condescending and/or clasist when the average age of core consumers is above 35. As the original article points out, games may be an escape from those issues we may face on a daily basis, and coming home to someone else's miseries is not for everyone. What feels wrong for everyone is someone else telling us we have to play or follow their agenda, same way facebook is full of Like posts about hoax wars on Africa, kids in need of an operation, abandoned dogs or diseases with more media punch than cancer or depression. Flavour of the week teaspoon-sized doses of feel-good guiltkiller.  The second non-debate you're trying to initiate is how to squish gamists into a narrativistic game view like yours. Me, as many other people in this thread, we're not in for the story but rather for the mechanics. No matter how you put it you can't shoehorn a story like Gone Home's or Dys4ia's into a gameplay-centric game like Ninja Gaiden. We dislike Kotaku's Top10 Last of Us, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Uncharted and many others because mechanically they are not as right and there were concession in favor of narrative. We don't see any political implications in the ludicrous storyline of MGS:Revengeance or Quake because the authors never intended to have them. I played Gone Home, Dear Esther and a couple of those cute choose your own adventure from Cara Elision and did not walk away smarter, more social-justice aware or enlightened, I found them quite inferior to any other form of "preachy" media I've consumed before. But we should not ask for them to disappear just because they weren't for us. As pointed many other articles, even those by Anita, the whole industry has to step up the narrative if they want to catch up with literature or cinema and tone down on the boob sizes a bit. None of those important pieces is going to come from ZQ, Cara, Nathan Grayson or probably you or me. But in any case, inbetween every deep black and white undubbed lebanase movie or essay on post-marxism in Russia after the Perestroika, even the most pedantic academic activist enjoys some bad equivalent of marvel summer flicks and 50 shades of gray and Madden.
> To stop other countries from using nuclear weapons, which is what you said.  The threat already exists at that point, genies don't go back in bottles.  > Everything Un does is consistent with his goal of maintaining his regime.  No it isn't. Building nuclear weapons itself isn't! He's attracting more ire than anything such a program possibly gains him when he already had China and Russia looking out for his regime.  >In a standoff, every rational actor would withdraw because destruction is contrary to their goals  Is that how standoffs always play out? I... wish it were.  >Do you have anything to support you're claim that there's a coalition of anti-US nations who are scheming to destroy us?  Why exactly do you think that Russia is funding and supplying North Korea and aiding the development of their weapons programs?  >Then don't say that NK has a gun pointed straight at our head.  Why? That's a great analogy.  >That implies that we're in a survival situation  Uhm, we are? A threat to attack our homeland is precisely an existential threat.  >Cool. So we can't just stop that from happening in other countries? Why?  Because to do so would disadvantage us by denying us an apparently quite effective strategy. Even if we denied it to ourselves, other world powers likely would not. [SEP] >The threat already exists at that point, genies don't go back in bottles.  I'm not saying that we should tell countries that already have nuclear weapons to stop developing nuclear weapons. You said you were afraid of nuclear proliferation. Why can't we just let North Korea be, and then take steps to stop further proliferation? Why can't the US evolve its strategy? Please answer this time.  >No it isn't. Building nuclear weapons itself isn't! He's attracting more ire than anything such a program possibly gains him when he already had China and Russia looking out for his regime.  It's interesting that you didn't bring this up earlier, because this as a point that actually has some validity to it. It is. He's trying to close to power differential between North Korea and America. The fact that people are getting so scared and starting to perceive NK as a real threat is exactly what will allow him to make greater demands with the extra leverage he gets. Of course, its a risk, but it will pay off for NK.  >Is that how standoffs always play out? I... wish it were.  They don't play out like that, because the people who participate in standoffs are irrational. The difference is that nations are rational. I already explained this. I'm saying that you're analogy does not apply. I'll spell it out for you.  You are saying: 1. Standoffs will play out in a way which makes it beneficial to fire first. 2. We are in a standoff. 3. Thus, we should fire first.  I'm saying that we AREN'T in a standoff, because the progression of events in an actual standoff involving individuals is fundamentally different from the progression of events in a theoretical, global standoff, because the decision-makers are entirely different in both situations.  Do you have any response to the fact that rational actors don't like war?  >Why exactly do you think that Russia is funding and supplying North Korea and aiding the development of their weapons programs?  Russia's funding and supplying is motivated by counter balancing against America. North Korea gets stronger, America loses power in the region, which is a positive for Russia. North Korea is special because they've been threatening to destroy America for as long as I can remember. I don't know of any other country that's similar to America. Who else do you think would be a good candidate for Russia to proliferate towards? Do you think that we couldn't take steps to stop future proliferation, now that we know what they are doing?  >Uhm, we are? A threat to attack our homeland is precisely an existential threat.  You just said that North Korea couldn't topple us. Do you think they have the firepower to dismantle our entire country, or just wipe out many people? You also don't need to use condescending language.  >Why? That's a great analogy.  I already explained why. Gun pointed to head implies that North Korea can literally destroy/kill America, but it doesn't have the firepower to. It has the potential to do a lot of damage, which is why a gun pointed to our leg or something would be more accurate.  >Because to do so would disadvantage us by denying us an apparently quite effective strategy. Even if we denied it to ourselves, other world powers likely would not.  I can't tell if you are purposely misinterpreting my points. Why can't we just stop OTHER countries, which don't have nuclear weapons, from developing nuclear weapons.  You haven't responded to a lot of my points. And the responses you have made either totally misinterpreted what I was saying or failed to address the real point I was trying to make.
I couldnt agree more but lets be honest these movies have strayed far from the car scene and into over the top nonsense for the masses long ago. The first will forever be the best, each consecutive one has become farther from the atmosphere they started with/captured so well. [SEP] > over the top nonsense for the masses  As condescending as that is, it's not like the earlier ones were some masterpiece cinema.  It's kind of impressive how entertaining they can make their movies even now. I loved the first one, but they needed to evolve or the franchise would have gone stale a long time ago. Hell, it did go stale before they turned it into this.
I don't go through life attacking other people for mistakes. The opposite. I give people second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and even eighth chances. I give them as many chances as they want and try to be as considerate as possible. I myself have never done what OP described. It would make me personally uncomfortable. That being said, I would never question someones RIGHT to say that in that situation, because I grew up here in New England. That is how things are here, and what I did is I explained the attitude. Yes, New Englanders are puritanical perfectionists. More news at 11. It's not like we have a legacy of both Utopianism, "City on a Hill" ism, and Puritanism in general or anything. Around here, the mindest I described is the majority one, and imo, ethically, it's sound. I'm personally uncomfortable behaving that way because it is my culture but not my personal nature. I don't mind these things as much. But not because they aren't worth minding. I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and be easygoing with them. But, and this is important, anyone who behaves the way I described is within their rights to do so. At least up here. There's nothing wrong with it ethically, and thus, it's righteous. Whether or not it's tactful is a different and frankly unimportant question. Do I like to be tactful? Sure. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. [SEP] >I don't go through life attacking other people for mistakes. The opposite. I give people second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and even eighth chances. I give them as many chances as they want and try to be as considerate as possible. I myself have never done what OP described. It would make me personally uncomfortable.   Ok...then what are we talking about? Yeah, I would fantasize about saying that. Hell I fantasize about my shitty car transforming into Gravedigger and running over slow left-lane drivers. Fantasizing is fine, if that's where it ends.  >That being said, I would never question someones RIGHT to say that in that situation, because I grew up here in New England. That is how things are here, and what I did is I explained the attitude. Yes, New Englanders are puritanical perfectionists.   Ah well, different places are different. Apparently, being rude to someone being slow is fine up there. In China, kids shit in the street. If you want to say "everywhere is different" fine...but that justifies the street shitting too. If you want to say "it's a good thing people are aggressively condescending to slow people" well...maybe in a place so busy I can't comprehend it. Maybe that's what the civilization there requires: brusque rudeness. Otherwise, too many slow things add up and the system falls apart. Again, ah well...not my speed.   >Whether or not it's tactful is a different and frankly unimportant question. Do I like to be tactful? Sure. Is it necessary? Absolutely not.   Well that is an opinion. 
> Do you know how difficult it is to get 50% of the electorate to support you in an election and who is to say that a more moderate conservative party doesn't rise from the ashes and make inroads towards the centre.  We've seen it in other countries. If a prime minister somehow becomes popular enough in a single election, should that be grounds for that prime minister to be able to install themselves for life?   >The current polarity of the electorate exists because the state of the NDP and CPC is so off-putting. Canadians are moderate and I am more than confident that if presented with a socially progressive but fiscally conservative party were to form; Canadians would get behind it.  This has nothing to do with whether or not substantive changes to elections should be held to a different standard, because of their power to effectively undo the primary check on the power of a majority.  >Parliament is the sole body that has the constitutional authority to effect change. A referendum is pointless unless bound, which rarely happens and is often contested in the courts.  The question is how should we reform the fundamental structure of our democracy. I do not think such fundamental reforms should become part of routine politicking where every single party who takes power then gets to set the terms of the next election to be the most favourable to themselves.   I do not believe that is healthy. So if we're going to reform we should do so in a way that both follows a process to make sure that this change and establishes a reasonable process to make adjustments.  [SEP] >We've seen it in other countries. If a prime minister somehow becomes popular enough in a single election, should that be grounds for that prime minister to be able to install themselves for life?  Where and I am speaking in relation to Canada specifically. The last party to do it were the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney, the LPC did it prior in 1949.   Mulroney achieved this by joining Quebec Separatists and Western Reformists under the same tent. Conservatives could do it again if they manage to rebuild their federalist brand in Quebec. I don't think this is possible if the socred element continues to call the shots within that party.  >This has nothing to do with whether or not substantive changes to elections should be held to a different standard, because of their power to effectively undo the primary check on the power of a majority  Ok, but what this does demonstrate that the sole argument being used to push against the Liberal policy is that it will guarantee Liberal governments is false. The Liberals preferred system requires that a greater consensus be achieved in order to secure government. Whether this consensus is achieved under one party or a broader consensus of like minded parties is irrelevant as the same goals are achieved.  >The question is how should we reform the fundamental structure of our democracy. I do not think such fundamental reforms should become part of routine politicking where every single party who takes power then gets to set the terms of the next election to be the most favourable to themselves.  And I don't think that every major decision that a government needs to make should be derailed by special interests by appealing to the populist nature of uninformed Canadians. Putting a question to them does little in terms of ensuring that it is the right decisions. This is the problem with the Tyranny of the Majority and either we entrust our elected officials to make critical and important decisions on our behalf or we do away with all this nonsense and simply have 6 referendums a year.   Just because you feel that this sort of change must be appealed to Canadians directly does not mean that we all feel that way and as it relates to this poll and what it suggests (very important) does nothing to determine if Canadians are capable of making the proper decision. I know this sounds condescending, but various polls over the years have shown Canadians to be against: abortion, gay marriage, divorce, and a myriad of other matters of social importance.  How we elect officials is a matter of civic importance and appealing to the masses in order to make the right decisions is anti-intellectual and the wrong approach to this matter.  Canadians are going to the polls in 2019 and each party can present a system that they would either prefer. If this is of such great importance to Canadians, they can cast their ballots appropriately.   If they want the CPC method, everyone can cast the CPC as their first ballot choice. If they want the LPC method, same and so forth. The opposition parties are trying to make this the #1 concern of Canadians when we really care about jobs, security, and prosperity.  >I do not believe that is healthy. So if we're going to reform we should do so in a way that both follows a process to make sure that this change and establishes a reasonable process to make adjustments.  We do have a reasonable process to make adjustments: Parliament and elections.   If Canadians are so violently opposed to the Liberal position, they can vote on it in 2019 and elect the party that they feel best suits their style of electing members of parliament. 
Uhm, well first of all while to you the definition of  >whiner" = "complaining unreasonably"  That doesn't mean that every time someones describes someone as "complaining unreasonably" that they intend to say "whiner".  Otherwise your turning this into an argument of what you think Iamplasma is implying.... which is not a very strong argument. I don't think many people even interpretted this way. Even saying that it is "accepted slang" is not a very solid reason to for you to imply that Iamplasma meant to say whiner when he clearly didn't.   People can say complaining unreasonably without saying meaning the term whiner whatsoever. Otherwise every time you said black person or african american, someone could easily "interpret" as saying nigger.  The op however, was very blunt and chose to say Little Bitch, which is what Iamplasma, many other people, and including I have a distaste for. [SEP] > Even saying that it is "accepted slang" is not a very solid reason to for you to imply that Iamplasma meant to say whiner when he clearly didn't.   I did not mean to imply that - iamplasma did not, in any of his comments, say 'whiner' or even mean that.   > The op however, was very blunt and chose to say Little Bitch, which is what Iamplasma, many other people, and including I have a distaste for.  Granted - and as I said, that is a perfectly valid feeling. What I didn't like is the condescending way in which iamplasma said that the OP should be 'in school'. By doing so, at best you are sinking to the same tone banality as OP, at worst you are making an ad hominem attack in a very patronizing way. 
No. It's like you don't even SEE the middle ground. You vote your way, and you don't call people 'racist/misogynist scum' for voting the other way. You don't vilify people, in your outrage.  You - without judgement - ask them why they voted that way, what their priorities were, because you don't understand why someone would vote for a racist. Because people DID, without being racist themselves. And they had reasons they felt were good. And instead of you saying, "No reason is good enough, you're the scum of the earth," and alienating them forever and cementing in their mind that 'liberal lefties are judgemental pricks', you either plant the seed of suggestion or at the very least you leave them thinking, "That feller's alright. Don't agree with 'em, but they're civil."   Your outrage is misdirected, pointless, and utterly self-defeating if you're using it to criticize Trump voters. And it's the self-defeating part that proves that it's purely about ego.   Do you want to actually accomplish something and affect positive change, or do you just want to feel better about yourself for being sooooo self-righteous while you sabotage the chances of those you're trying to help?  [SEP] >you don't call people 'racist/misogynist scum' for voting the other way.   Yeah If I see someone being racist or misogynistic I call it. Too bad.   >And instead of you saying, "No reason is good enough, you're the scum of the earth,"   I didn't say that. But if you are being racist I'll say that's racist. Again, too bad.   >and alienating them forever and cementing in their mind that 'liberal lefties are judgemental pricks',   Sorry are these human being we are talking about here? Because you seem to have less of an opinion of them than you claim I do.   And why do they get the monopoly on acceptable ignorance and judging? Like why is it ok for these people to stereotype and vilify the left? You act as if this is the natural outcome for them, like they have no choice.    >you either plant the seed of suggestion or at the very least you leave them thinking, "That feller's alright. Don't agree with 'em, but they're civil."  Who is condescending to rural people now? I live in a city now but I grew up and spent my younger years in rural locations. You seem to see them like children.  
> It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.  ffs no. Why do you people think any kind of analysis of power structures is "Marxism"? I can't analyse power structures without being a "Marxist"?   [SEP] >I can't analyse power structures without being a "Marxist"?  You can, but that's not the issue. The objective is the selective pearl-clutching focusing exclusively on the analysis of or complaints about power structures originating from a "Marxist" (by which they mean anyone who is not a conservative) perspective, and pretending that this is some particularly egregious or dangerous problem unique to the left.   "Political correctness" as a term is not used for all instances where someone is expected to self-censor lest they offend someone. Goodness no. I was raised in a huge Safe Space for conservative Christian and Neo-Confederate beliefs. You couldn't openly mock or criticize Christianity, or point out that the Confederates were simply racist traitors. But that wasn't characterized as political correctness, nor was it deemed a threat to the republic. The term is a politicized and pejorative rhetorical bludgeon, just as "mansplaining" is for the feminists who use the term. 
> That is, officials in the Soviet Union and in North Korea and in Maoist China did say that they were killing because of Atheism.  I'll try and source the assertion, but that may take some time. Do you mind if we shelve that particular section of this discussion until/unless I can come back with a source?  > How good of you, then, to step in and speak for what they "really mean." Ah, the arrogance of the psuedo-historian...  Ah, no. This is pretty basic stuff, dealt with in sociology and anthropology as well as history.  Yeah, 'natural philosophers' and 'philosophers' are completely different things, and yes science did replace 'natural philosophy'. But the differences in the scientific method over time have not been small; some of them have been at least as large as the differences between 'natural philosophy' and science.  As for 'proof', that is not a word that any modern practising scientist should ever use, except for as an idiom or figure of speech, or when subtly misrepresenting the truth to a crowd of non-scientists (which I think of as evil, but a case can be made for eg speaking of evolution as absolutely proven, so that 'creation scientists' cannot lie by grossly misrepresenting what the actual scientists said as meaning). Falsifiability (which came from Popper in the 1930s) put paid to 'proof', and neither do ideas of probabilistic induction or traditional rationality support it, as you would know if you knew anything about the subject.  a) I am not saying that every human conflict comes about for reasons other than an explicit clash of ideologies, just that most of them do. We humans have warred and had lesser conflicts a lot over our history. For example, it seems clear that the Catholic attacks on Catharism or Arianism were explicitly ideological, as was the Maoist attack on Capitalism (or the Capitalist attack on Maoism, depending on who you think struck first). But by most measures that I am aware of, religion has not been a prime or sufficient instigator in most cases of human strife, which is to say that if you magically removed religion from humanity, wars would happen about as often (there would be some wars that did not happen, but then there have also been occurrences where religion has stopped wars, so...) and in about the same ways.  b) As for 'they did it in the name of no fairies', let us explore this thought experiment. Let us say that 'fairyists' have a number of strange practices that are justified solely on the basis of fairies, like that all men should turn their shirts inside out when walking through the countryside at night because otherwise they will be abducted by fairies. Furthermore, let us be generous and say that there are enough fairyists, that many of their practices have become social norms (to provide a reasonable reason for non-fairyists to exhibit the behaviour, because otherwise this is a slam dunk for me). So, if someone did not believe in fairies, that would remove the prime or motivating reason for following those strange practices. It may still not make a change in outcome, as they may just mindlessly go along with social norms, but in the same vein a fairyist may not follow the practices of fairyism for any number of reasons, like they may only wear shirts that cannot be turned inside out without being damaged. So, Being or not being a fairyist make the same kind of difference in probable observed behaviour. So, if being a fairyist van be a cause, not being a fairyist can be a cause. Being a fairyist can be a cause. So, being a non-fairyist can be a cause.  I see Theism/Atheism similarly, and specific Theist belief systems/specific Atheist belief systems similarly. Does that make sense? [SEP] >Do you mind if we shelve that particular section of this discussion until/unless I can come back with a source?  Sure thing, just bring it up whenever you've found something.  >Ah, no. This is pretty basic stuff, dealt with in sociology and anthropology as well as history.  Right, except for when it happens that we can actually hear from people's own mouths, either because they're alive today to ask or through historical record, "Why are you fighting them/killing them," and they give an answer that is explicitly religious in nature. Now again, you can step in and say "Well that's why THEY think they're fighting it, but in reality it's really blah blah blarghblarghle." And to me that's cheating. Maybe it's just a difference of judgement or whatever, but I find it incredibly condescending and distasteful when people, whether it's politicians or the media or historians or whatever, take someone's words and utterly disregard them, putting in place instead their own beliefs of what the person's actual motivations are.  And yes, of course this subject is sensitive to chains of cause and effect, so that while the soldiers on the ground are fighting because of what they believe are religious reasons, the people at the top are actually orchestrating it for political ones, but why does that matter? We already know and agree that political conflicts happen and will happen irregardless of religion. Those people are still fighting for religious reasons though, and there's no reason to believe automatically that even without those religious convictions that are fueling them, they would still fight for the political reasons, or else their leaders would hardly have to lie to them in the first place, now would they?  >As for 'proof', that is not a word that any modern practising scientist should ever use, except for as an idiom or figure of speech  I never used proof in relation to science, as in "science proves so and so": I said "disprove," which is certainly possible through science, and even necessary to test a hypothesis or theory. While we may only be able to determine assertions to finer and finer degrees of accuracy, we can certainly "prove" that an assertion or theory is false. If some pseudo-scientist claims that ginseng tea will reduce your risk of cancer, "real" scientists, using the scientific method, can disprove his assertion. How many people follow that quack afterward is irrelevant; they're not using science to do so, but rather faith in that person, or wishful thinking in the "medicine." If some reverend says that God told him homosexuals are going to hell, you can certainly disagree with him, but what can you say about his faith that is any more relevant or meaningful than what someone else can say about yours?  a) Then it's a difference of degree, ultimately. We agree that some (or most) conflicts are religiously based and some (or most) are political/tribal/whatever. But how you decide to interpret those wars ultimately is going to show your bias, or mine; and like I said above, I don't care if some scheming politician or ancient King sends his people to war for conquest and tells them God wills it: I want to live in a world where "God wills it" is not sufficient reason to ever hurt anyone, ever, and saying "Oh, no, religion doesn't cause conflicts" is just deflecting blame and preventing that goal.  b) Yes, that makes sense, but it's also accounted for by the last part of my previous post (which was an edit, so maybe that didn't show up in the message you got and responded to: not sure how Reddit messages work):  >At the very most, a retraction might make some sense... wiping a salt circle off the floor because you don't believe fairies exist, for example, or tossing a bible in the trash because you don't believe it is holy in any way, but those are not "in the name of," those are incidental actions. We're getting into the nitty-gritty of casual behaviorism now, but the fairy-analogy puts it very simply.  So basically your scenario makes sense as a reason why non-belief would influence action, but it's simply a reversion of the action caused by belief: it's like saying wiping a sentence off a chalkboard is the same as never writing it in the first place. The end result is the same; non-belief in fairies/theism does not "cause" an action any more than lack of pain "causes" someone not to scream.
It had to do with the overt condescension where you talked about your principles and "people like you [me]" and how you think you're highly principled compared to people who don't make a fuss over a simple question. I choose the easier path when there is no reason to be difficult. If a police officer is giving me a hard time, then it is time to flex my constitutional rights. If a Customs agent wants an answer about why I was on vacation, I'll probably just say "tourism" or "business" because being indignant and acting self-righteous is a waste of time. There positive end-game outweighs the negative. Best positive: She/He doesn't ask you again. Worst negative: Time wasted getting interrogated, your luggage torn apart, and you get charges for inane bullshit that will still cost you court fees.  Custom agents aren't worth it. Overzealous police, security, etc... worth it.  Also, I never set out to change your mind. I don't know why you thought I was trying to. I simply voiced an opinion. [SEP] >overt condescension  I can see why you'd think so. But I respect your choice, regardless of what you may think. I may think that you're making the wrong one, but I see the logic behind your decision.  >a fuss over a simple question  And you're talking to me about being condescending?  >I choose the easier path when there is no reason to be difficult.  Look, I choose the harder path because there is reason to be difficult. We clearly view this matter completely differently and you keep addressing the ease or difficulty of the matter when the only party that's relevant to is yourself. If my rights are important to me the measure of difficulty in fighting for them is irrelevant.   >If a police officer is giving me a hard time, then it is time to flex my constitutional rights.  I find it mildly amusing that you view a customs agent differently than a (I assume you're referring to:) a random beat cop.  >If a Customs agent wants an answer about why I was on vacation, I'll probably just say "tourism" or "business" because being indignant and acting self-righteous is a waste of time.  You're talk about overt condescension condescension but you've been dismissing a skirmish over civil rights this entire time as being a little fucking prick. You're basically saying: Look, you obviously look down on me which is mean but, by the way, you're full of shit and make a fuss over nothing.  >There positive end-game outweighs the negative. Best positive: She/He doesn't ask you again. Worst negative: Time wasted getting interrogated, your luggage torn apart, and you get charges for inane bullshit that will still cost you court fees.  Yes, your positive outweighs your negative. My positive does not.  >Also, I never set out to change your mind. I don't know why you thought I was trying to. I simply voiced an opinion.  No, but you did set out to judge someone who was actively pursuing his rights. Meanwhile a few months from now when you're arguing with some guy on reddit about a beat cop violating someone's rights in a video and the guy says it's easier just to be nice to the cop and that the guy in the video is just being a dick I hope you'll remember this exchange.
>All matter is condensed energy. If it wasn't there probably wouldn't be a wave-particle duality.  The mass-energy equivalence follows from definitions in special relativity, which is a purely classical theory. There was no appeal to the wave-particle duality in deriving this result.  >I almost never listen to Deepak Chopra, unless he's been dragged into something else I'm watching, so I think your negative confirmation bias is probably just as prone to clouding your judgment as positive confirmation bias.  This isn't confirmation bias. Deepak Chopra has no formal training in physics. He's made that abundantly clear.  >Boltzmann brain.[1] Can you understand that?  I'd be impressed if you actually understood what a Boltzmann brain is without quoting Wikipedia. [SEP] > This isn't confirmation bias. Deepak Chopra has no formal training in physics. He's made that abundantly clear.  It's confirmation bias if you drag his name out before someone else does. I don't care that he's a quack, because I didn't mention him first. He's not someone I'd ever bring up. He's the LAST person I'd bring up in this context, however, it doesn't mean he doesn't base his lucrative book and video business on nuggets of truth, either.  > I'd be impressed if you actually understood what a Boltzmann brain is without quoting Wikipedia.  Now you're just being a condescending jerk. I've known about them for years. It's the paradox of organization into consciousness in the face of ever diffusing entropy, and if it happens at all, it should happen so often that inanimate matter must coagulate into some mass of highly ordered, self-aware state, more often than evolution could even create on it's own, because the universe is divided by entropy in one respect, but coagulates matter into a high degree of order, in another.
Yes, the government can force you to take care of someone when you are a parent. Negligent parents are prosecuted all the time, and it always requires great personal sacrifice. Are you advocating that all parents should be able to kill their children because they are unwilling and it requires great sacrifice?  I do agree that we shouldn't be forced to be alturists, we should do that because we are moral people.  I agree that a person should not ever be forced to provide their body as a means for another person to survive, but doesn't the choice to procreate cause some kind of responsibility to ensure the survival of a child? Are parents completely free of responsibility because it is inconvinient?   I think that if a woman keeps a child past the 18 week mark, it should no longer be an option to abort because the fetus has now become a person capable of sustaining itself outside of the womb. She has accepted the risks of pregnancy at this point. This is why the definition of a person creates a different meaning. Murder is wrong, abortion is a choice. [SEP] >Yes, the government can force you to take care of someone when you are a parent. Negligent parents are prosecuted all the time, and it always requires great personal sacrifice. Are you advocating that all parents should be able to kill their children because they are unwilling and it requires great sacrifice?  The government can punish you for not taking care of your children, but it is also possible to have that responsibility abdicated. Parents leave their children all the time, that's why there are things like child support. I feel no need to clarify my position on the killing of children. (fucking lay off the dumb shit)  >I do agree that we shouldn't be forced to be alturists, we should do that because we are moral people.  Thanks for agreeing. I think we're on the same page here.  > I agree that a person should not ever be forced to provide their body as a means for another person to survive  BOOM! We have it. You've got it. One person cannot force another person to use their body for their own benefit.  >doesn't the choice to procreate cause some kind of responsibility to ensure the survival of a child? Are parents completely free of responsibility because it is inconvenient?  I would say that you're wrong in a couple ways here.   First: most of the cases where an abortion is being considered it can be assumed that procreation was not the intended result.  Second: Making it seem as though a pregnancy is little more than an inconvenience is a very condescending thing to do. You make it seem as though the only reason people have abortions is because the person involved too lazy. The truth is much more complicated and serious than that, so let's leave that kind of condescending tomfoolery at the door.  >I think that if a woman keeps a child past the 18 week mark, it should no longer be an option to abort because the fetus has now become a person capable of sustaining itself outside of the womb. She has accepted the risks of pregnancy at this point. This is why the definition of a person creates a different meaning.   So, a few notes here: one, you've got the age of fetal viability wrong by about 8 weeks. Second, you seem to have missed the point of what we've been talking about.  Most people who consider themselves to be pro-life say that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Me and you and them all have different views on the matter, but I would argue that regardless of whether or not you consider a fetus to be a person it is still not ok to force someone to carry it to term.  >Murder is wrong, abortion is a choice.  OK, Pause. I don't think anyone here is saying that abortion is not a choice. (except for the huge number of naturally-occurring abortions )  I don't think anyone here is saying that murder is ok.  The question we are discussing is whether or not someone has the right to live via your resources. The truth is that we in the first world commit "murder" everyday according to your definition. We could send money and food to a starving person, and damn-near everyone of us could give a more. However, does that mean that we are all murderers? Is it murder to abdicate responsibility? Is it murder to eat while others starve? Is it murder to refuse the use of your body to someone who is dependent on it?  I say no.
Sure, yes, but the examples you gave were at best misguided advice and at worst thinly veiled insults.  Like seriously, do you think that saying "you'd be better at your job if you knew more" is a nice thing to say and will illicit a positive response?  If you want actual examples of positive reinforcement it would be something like  "Hey, great job attacking the healer first, that really made the difference"  or   "I really enjoyed how you went deep on your analysis of that deck, it was clear you really know a lot about it" [SEP] > Like seriously, do you think that saying "you'd be better at your job if you knew more" is a nice thing to say and will illicit a positive response?  You're wording is not mine.   My example was very clean and positive, not condescending or veiled in anyway.   Some people will just respond negatively.   >If you want actual examples of positive reinforcement it would be something like "Hey, great job attacking the healer first, that really made the difference"  This is assuming they did in fact attack the healer first.   Commending people for something they did right is not the issue here.   Getting people to change their play to be better is the issue.   >"I really enjoyed how you went deep on your analysis of that deck, it was clear you really know a lot about it"  Again, this assume the analysis was deep and they do know a lot about their deck.   What if their analysis was shallow and they gave bad idea out of a misunderstanding of their role in a match up?   You assume everything is puppy dogs and gum drops when it's not.   If the only comments you see are about your positives you will never learn your negatives. You will never fix your negatives.   Why can't we say something needs fixing when it comes to some authors and not others?   Mike Flores always referenced articles he wrote years ago in every single new article as an obviously desperate attempt to retain relevancy. Saying that about him was never silenced.   Even Erwin was way too positive about every card. So much so that you couldn't trust his card evaluations because every card was the next big thing. Criticizing him for that was fine.   Death threats and sexist crap is clearly unacceptable but it literally happens to everyone. It's not a national emergency when someone calls me gay. I respond with "What's wrong with that?" Troll stopped. I didn't feed him. Thick skin and the realization that trolls do not matter. They cannot hurt you if you don't let them. Shrug off the haters. They aren't worth anyone's time. 
> Didn't make a great impression m8  yes. again, that's my point. many of them hated me for that. downvoted, called a "dog", and so on (btw somehow missing my primary use of reddit, which is datamining PS2 files)... and yet, others did create feedback that was very useful for SOE.  do you find anything wrong about my posts? were they inappropriate? spamming? trolling? as I stated, my intention was only to understand, and to help. and yet, for that I was downvoted, called names, offended. "best community" indeed... [SEP] Wait so it was you that spearheaded the loginside tracker? Well shit.  >do you find anything wrong about my posts? were they inappropriate? spamming? trolling? as I stated, my intention was only to understand, and to help. and yet, for that I was downvoted, called names, offended. "best community" indeed...  They were aggravating many of the community and despite your claimed intentions you make a lot of condescending comments that did little but further inflame people. Hence people telling you to fuck off because you sound like a cunt.
Hey, you have valid criticism, but for one thing, it's a little illogical that your opposition to my language is based on its impropriety in "work/school/out of the door from the D&D campaign" settings, when the event in question IS specifically for cutting loose and enjoying our madness. And regardless of that, I think your open hostility and snap judgment of my character is more of an obstacle in joining groups and meeting new people than my apparently misguided attempts at informality.  Geekalicious is a community by and large of people with "immature" interests (including Dr. Who), and I use this tone of speech to be welcoming and enthusiastic. Perhaps my social skills are not as advanced as other members of society, and that's probably why I get along better in crowds of nerds and geeks, who tend to be much less judgmental.  Hopefully this message is coherent enough for you to regain some faith in the mental capacity of humanity by at least one person. I agree, if I always spoke the way I did in my post, I'd be a pretty annoying human being. But I don't, and I see no true harm in making an event invitation err on the side of being too bubbly than being too dull. If it offends you this much, chances are good that you wouldn't enjoy geekalicious. Let's leave it at that and not get all personal about it, shall we?  [SEP] > Hey, you have valid criticism, but for one thing, it's a little illogical that your opposition to my language is based on its impropriety in "work/school/out of the door from the D&D campaign" settings, when the event in question IS specifically for cutting loose and enjoying our madness.  I'm all for cutting loose, but would be pretty turned off by spending time with someone to do so if they spoke like a pre-teen in any context.  > Geekalicious is a community by and large of people with "immature" interests (including Dr. Who), and I use this tone of speech to be welcoming and enthusiastic.  Cool. My interests are pretty nerdy and sometimes immature. But being that I am 26-years-old, I talk and act like it.  > Perhaps my social skills are not as advanced as other members of society, and that's probably why I get along better in crowds of nerds and geeks, who tend to be much less judgmental.  That's painting with quite the broad brush. In my experience, "geeks" can be among the most pretentious and judgemental people around. I'm glad your friends are kind people, but it has nothing to do with them being "geeks" at all.  > Hopefully this message is coherent enough for you to regain some faith in the mental capacity of humanity by at least one person.  Not really. Now you're just coming off as condescending and pretentious with your forced use of trying to sound coherent.  > I agree, if I always spoke the way I did in my post, I'd be a pretty annoying human being. But I don't, and I see no true harm in making an event invitation err on the side of being too bubbly than being too dull.   All I'm saying is if you invite people in a childish manner, you're going to get a lot of childish people responding.   > If it offends you this much, chances are good that you wouldn't enjoy geekalicious.  It takes a lot to truly offend me and this hasn't even come close. I probably wouldn't enjoy Geekalicious because from what I can tell, it would be full of a bunch of adults who act and talk like children.  > Let's leave it at that and not get all personal about it, shall we?  You got it.
It doesnt. Check the bill champ.  I'll link since you cant scroll up.   http   You can just go ahead and read it... or you know... read the Q&A you posted which explicitly states >have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Comission.   Sorry, quick question, do you not know what already means... or are you just unable to read?   Oh... btw... you still don't have a legitimate crticism?    Edit to your edit: NO IT DOESNT. You think that an ontario agency has jurisdiction over national law??? That's the claim in your edit lol [SEP] > It doesnt. Check the bill champ.  I have read it. You can read it all you want. It doesn't define what gender identity, gender expression or discrimination are. That's done elsewhere.  > Sorry, quick question, do you not know what already means... or are you just unable to read?  If you want to be condescending you should make sure you're right. Otherwise you end up looking a fool like right now. "Hurr durr they don't define what these things are. They already defined it!".  > Oh... btw... you still don't have a legitimate crticism?  You just keep ignoring it or denying it as you see fit, while repeating "read the bill" like a broken record. > You think that an ontario agency has jurisdiction over national law??? That's the claim in your edit lol  Yes, it is one of them. You really should read the Q&A I posted >> With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain
Because terrible is completely subjective. You take a thirteen year old to see Transformers and he's going to love it. You take a movie reviewer to see it and he's going to hate it. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it makes the people who do like it any worse or any more stupid. Some people like explosions and don't care about whether or not there's any character development. I for one just want to see huge robots fighting. And that's good enough for me.  [SEP] > You take a thirteen year old to see Transformers and he's going to love it.  That's pretty god damn condescending to 13 year olds.
You're young boytjie & I admire that youthful idealism & naivete of yours. Stay in school, find a suitable profession & build your wealth.   > "This post is ‘expertise and experience’? In your dreams."   I never claimed to be a full blown expert on the topic of sailing on any of my posts or even in this post boytjie. Ever heard of something called 'sarcasm'? Learn to read between the lines and fine print. Nice internet trolling boytjie btw...   > "At least you can move a boat away from theft, destruction or unfavourable legislation."   That is why you never put what you value in one basket, you always diversify. The sea is not completely safe place either. Even your citizenship bounds you to your country's laws and accountable to the laws of the country that you are visiting. Your point is moot.   > "If your home base is a particular country maybe it would work (I believe even Lloyds maritime insurance requires a land based domicile). If your home base is the world it becomes more problematic."   Every vessel has a home port boytjie. Operating a boat without insurance in international waters & docking in foreign ports is asking for trouble. Just research what happens when you don't have insurance, especially if you get mired in collisions, awful weather & even vandalism. Certain marinas would even bar you from mooring if you don't have insurance.   > "The whole point is not having to put up with bureaucratic shit. Airport indeed. You will need a passport only to get into other countries."   Ah, to be young & naive. Youth really is wasted on the young. You haven't traveled much out of South Africa, have you boytjie? Maybe only coast sailing? If you plan on becoming a sea-fairing, offshore-dwelling individual you have to be familiar with the essentials laws & even bureaucracies of the particular country you want to visit. Anywhere in the world when you travel (both land & sea), you will have to deal with customs officials & bureaucrats; learn to deal with it. I suggest you travel to places by land first before dabbling into the ocean & familiarize yourself or better yet, read up. You will have to dock to replenish supplies & even for certain repairs/maintenance of your vessel as such you're going to need a Passport & some funds. Don't forget that countries have extradition treaties; be familiar with them & don't do anything stupid within territorial waters. Goodluck getting boarded upon by maritime security vessels and not having a proper form of identification while you're in their territorial waters. Bring plenty of K.Y. jelly while you're in a holding prison. Best of luck and enjoy plenty of butt-sex if you're into that...   > "That’s the idea – not to be trapped in this rubbish. Isn’t this a non-sequitar? I don’t see any connection with my post (it supports it)."   Read carefully my preceding post & your very own post boytjie. You claimed that owning a yacht is far cheaper than renting a house -- this notion of yours depends on the location of where you rent the house. In some cases, owning/operating a yacht is much more expensive than paying a mortage on a house. Learn to read the print boytjie before misquoting.   > "Women suffer from a disadvantage (they have a reproductive time frame). The biological clock is always counting down and an ocean going yacht is not ideal to raise children."   Exactly boytjie, exactly. That is why you won't see any attractive woman <30 y.o. willing to settle down to live in an offshore boat. Unless of course, they're idealist new-age hippy "chicks" that don't want kids. Offshore-living though is suitable for healthy retirees. So your assertion that yachting is a "babe" magnet is nonsense.   > "The rest of your post...is nothing of value."   Quite salty aren't we boytjie? Just re-read my previous post. Best of luck to you and your utopian dream boytjie, reality is grandmother Karma's unforgiving sister.  [SEP] > Ah, to be young & naive.  I’m 60 years old and you are condescending, ignorant and unpleasant. 
>You and Tuber occupy the two parts of the pie chart depicting who was responsible for assuring the removal from default.  Emphasis mine.  Perhaps you'd like to try to twist my words to mean something else now?  >You're aware that jij and tuber pulled their crap, then /r/atheism[4] was removed, right?  Emphasis mine.  You're really bad at comprehending words on a page.  >In context and read as is, it appears as if you are correcting /u/Feinberg[7] [-9] that /r/atheism[8] was removed as a default NOT because of people with your attitude, but because of /u/jij[9] [-38] and /u/tuber[10] .  People with my attitude had nothing to do with it. While they may have been thinking of doing so - and that's all that was confirmed - what jij and tuber did assured the undefaulting, and was wholly responsible for the schism.  >You did not correct /u/Feinberg[15] [-9] then, so you either didn't realize that /u/Feinberg[16] [-9] believed that you were claiming that /u/jij[17] [-38] and /u/tuber[18] were responsible for the removal of /r/atheism[19] as a default, or that was the stance you held. I'm leaning towards the latter, but if you'd like to correct yourself or clarify any further, you may.  Or that I didn't care about his misconception, only that he was using the same kind of logic with this:  >Oh, I see. After this, therefore because of this, right? That's sound reasoning.  When he said this:  >>It seems to me this very attitude shows why the admins removed /r/atheism[6] [1] when they did.  .  >If you're trying to say "I didn't say /u/jij[20] [-38] wasn't responsible for it, I said both /u/jij[21] [-38] and /u/tuber[22] are" then you are a prick who's just arguing for the sake of arguing.  No. I'm saying that I was very specific in what I blamed on who. I did not specifically say that both of them were responsible for the defaulting, I said they were responsible for assuring the defaulting.  I said specifically that jij was responsible for killing /r/atheism - though I would add tuber there as well. 'killing' not meaning the undefaulting, but assuring that the circlejerk idiots got what they wanted by splitting the community into tiny, insignificant ones.  I said that they pulled their crap, THEN it was removed. That is NOT me saying 'because of this, therefore this', but pointing out the chronological order of events.  By all means though, continue misreading my words. [SEP] >Assuring  Assuring, according to a quick Google search is:  1. tell someone something positively or confidently to dispel any doubts they may have.  2. make (something) certain to happen.  If you meant to use definition 1, then I don't know what the fuck you're saying. If you meant to use definition 2, then you're claiming that /u/tuber and /u/jij made sure that /r/atheism was removed from default, which is exactly what I'm saying, unless you'd like to correct yourself or clarify further.  >then  Yes, I addressed this. Particularly right here:  >In context and read as is, it appears as if you are correcting /u/Feinberg that /r/atheism was removed as a default NOT because of people with your attitude, but because of /u/jij and /u/tuber.  For specifics and reasons why I said 'in context', read what I typed earlier.  >You're really bad at comprehending words on a page.  You're good at ignoring the argument and just saying "lol nope! That's now how it is." I'm presenting this, because this very clearly makes it seem as if you're making the argument that /u/jij and /u/tuber are responsible for /r/atheism being removed from default. This is why some people reading this conversation would think that is your argument and stance. I'm telling you so you can clarify or correct yourself if that isn't what you're saying, and I'd appreciate it if your responses weren't 90% you being an asshole. It is not our fault you suck at writing.  >what jij and tuber did assured the undefaulting, and was wholly responsible for the schism.  How is this any different from saying "/u/jij [and /u/tuber were] responsible for being removed from the default"? Please clarify instead of saying "lol be better, dumbass."  >I said specifically that jij was responsible for killing /r/atheism[15] - though I would add tuber there as well. 'killing' not meaning the undefaulting, but assuring that the circlejerk idiots got what they wanted by splitting the community into tiny, insignificant ones.  Thank you for FINALLY getting to what I was trying to get out of you. It took you how many condescending asshole comments to get to this?  Now, to clarify, are you saying that 1) /u/jij and /u/tuber are responsible for splitting the community, and 2) the splitting of the community is the reason /r/atheism was undefaulted?  >By all means though, continue misreading my words.  Please keep avoiding the question and showing us how little thought you made into making sure people know what you were talking about and instead insulting us for your own terrible writing.
u/Devineman was the only r/soccer user in recorded history who actually knew what they were talking about. He had a track record of making people who disagreed with him look like complete idiots. He rage quit the sub because trolls were so fed up with his reason and logic they brigaded him and made new accounts just to try and piss him off.  [SEP] > He had a track record of making people who disagreed with him look like complete idiots.  He more often than not made himself look like an idiot. He couldn't argue a point without resorting to condescending insults. Sure, he's probably read more blog posts on FFP than anyone else but he should have spent a bit of that spare time on learning how to be civil on the Internet. 
> explain to me how flying the confederate flag is NOT anti-American, but taking a knee is. Please.  Why are you painting me with that brush? Both flying the confederate flag and football players doing their knee thing seem American enough to me.  > in the end, it was also a war between the US and a treasonous rebel state. That's factual.  Sure, a lot of things are factual, but I believe you'll find that in a lot of southern homes few people would welcome their family members being called treasonous by you. It wouldn't make doing so to them just, either. You're just being flippant and shitty about something you almost certainly have no personal experience with. This is just something you talk about. [SEP] > It wouldn't make doing so to them just, either. You're just being flippant and shitty about something you almost certainly have no personal experience with. This is just something you talk about.  I grew up around rednecks. They fly the flag all over the U.S. It's hypocritical and ignorant, and because that demographic is currently flipping its shit about football players kneeling, I find the hypocrisy stunning. Sorry if that's "flippant" or whatever to you, but damn, you assume a lot about strangers on the internet and are really, really condescending, even though all you're really saying is "You don't know what you're talking about."   I also was not painting "you" with any brush. I was demonstrating that people are living in warped realities; my example is that those who defend monuments to one of America's worst enemies and fly the flag of that enemy are the same ones outraged over the anthem stuff. It's a valid example.   If the players kneeling and the flag are both "American" to you, fine. My point is the people with the flag want to have their cake and eat it, too; they want to be able to call out the kneelers but fly the flag proudly. I'm tired of watching that kind of hypocrisy happen daily in America, it does piss me off, and I don't care if Southerners would be upset - my point is already that they get to be upset over the kneeling thing, but can't take the same heat for their own shit. Meanwhile, the right's the one calling everyone snowflakes. I don't get it, sorry. 
The damaged product can be priced at cost without losing money so long as the high-end product covers R&D by itself. In the absence of such an artificial split, the manufacturers must price the product to cover cost plus R&D. Therefore any newcomer trying to compete with a company that engages in artificial differentiation may be forced to put their cost-plus-R&D figure below the giant's cost alone.  > Which implies that the lower quality product should not exist at all because the lower end could easily be the fully enable quad-core sold for the price of a single core.  I agree that the crippled product should not exist, but so long as it's subsidized by overpriced and fully-functional products, it will effectively prevent most competition. Microchips in particular are not an easy business to get into under any circumstances.  Disabled cores are a very real example, by the way. If you think theory disagrees with their existence then I have bad news for theory.  > (I have never purchased DLC so the prospect of the "extras" just doesn't factor in for me)  You realize most of those "extras" are just base content that's been denied to you, right? You're being screwed on value-for-money because millions of other people will readily buy this crap without a second thought. They're being screwed on value-for-money because they don't recognize a bad deal when they see it. Everyone overpays for games with on-disc DLC. [SEP] >The damaged product can be priced at cost without losing money so long as the high-end product covers R&D by itself.   This is not how products are priced. Products are priced to be profit maximizing. This doesn't account, at all, for fixed costs such as R&D. It only accounts for variable costs. Whether it cost me 0 dollars to develop a product or $1,000,000 I would see it for the same price...the price that maximizes my revenue and therefore my profit. If I charge more than this price fewer people by my product and my revenue is smaller. If I charge less than this price I leave money on the table as people are willing to pay more.  Segmenting the market is done because it allow for two revenue maximizing prices to be set which allows for the producer to realize a greater max revenue. The high end item captures the premium market who values the item highly and will pay a lot of money for it. The low end item captures the general market who does not care for the bells and whistles and would not buy the expensive one no matter how fancy it got.   http   http   The above links will help explain why the above is true.  >n the absence of such an artificial split, the manufacturers must price the product to cover cost plus R&D.  False. As stated above there is a price at which your revenue is maximized. That is the absolute maximum you can charge. In the case of the split product there are two of these prices for the two branches. If the product were limited to only the higher end the revenue maximizing price would likely lie somewhere between the two. Depending on the elasticity of demand it could be nearer to the top end or nearer to the bottom end. Without more information about the consumer it is not possible to state that the price must be anything - only that it will be bounded by the higher and lower prices.  >I agree that the crippled product should not exist, but so long as it's subsidized by overpriced and fully-functional products, it will effectively prevent most competition. Microchips in particular are not an easy business to get into under any circumstances.  Subsidy implies that the crippled product is a loss leader of some variety. It is not. The crippled product is operating in a different market of consumers than the premium product and is seeking max revenues within that market.  >Disabled cores are a very real example, by the way. If you think theory disagrees with their existence then I have bad news for theory.  Of course disabled cores are a real example. It's cheaper to produce one item and then market it to different consumers. The product is profitable in the crippled state. The only reason it is crippled in the first place is because there are people who care about extra cores and people who don't. Differentiating the product allows the people who care about extra cores to pay more while the people who don't care about extra cores to pay less (and "receive" fewer cores). I acknowledge the existence of this readily.  When I say the low end product shouldn't exist what I am saying is that the crippled product is not squeezing out budget competitors. As you said whenever a budget competitor comes along the company just opens up one of the cores and runs it out of town. That is because the company is able to exert monopoly pricing powers in this market. If the company did not have a monopoly on say 4 core chips, then - very rapidly - the prices of 4 core chips would fall towards the marginal costs of production. Absent that competition, artificial segmentation is possible.  >You realize most of those "extras" are just base content that's been denied to you, right? You're being screwed on value-for-money because millions of other people will readily buy this crap without a second thought. They're being screwed on value-for-money because they don't recognize a bad deal when they see it. Everyone overpays for games with on-disc DLC.  This is very condescending. I know fully well what I am buying and don't care about the stuff I'm not getting. If I did, if it was something I felt owed to me for the cost I was paying, why on earth would I buy the product? It just makes no sense. When people buy things they are making a conscious decision that the amount they are paying is fair for the product (in the absence of coercion). There is no coercion in the games market because games are trivial. No one has a gun to my head saying "buy this". If I don't want it, I don't but it. And if I feel like I am getting short changed I don't buy. However If it's just an extra character or something stupid like that I don't really care. The extra character does not change my valuation of the product.   If you notice the most popular characters never get put into DLC. Why? Because if they did it would actually negatively affect casual people's valuation of the product.     
What I take issue with is your fractured understanding of what permanent residency means, and the not so subtle difference between permanent and primary. Simply evoking the rent board doesn't validate your understanding.  I have no idea what your question was, but you appear to be someone asking for info, you're arguing, and seem to think you know better. Your activism with SFBARF, is hard to look past in this topic. [SEP] > What I take issue with is your fractured understanding of what permanent residency means, and the not so subtle difference between permanent and primary. Simply evoking the rent board doesn't validate your understanding.  You’re right, I did confuse “principal place of residence” from SFRB regulation 1.21 with “permanently reside” from Costa-Hawkins. A unit must be both a tenant’s principal residence and his permanent residence in order to maintain protection from rent increases. As I understand it, a principal residence is more strict than a permanent residence; the principal residence regulation was added to crack down on rent-controlled pied-à-terres according to this article.  You still haven’t answered the question though. Do you object to the requirement under rent control that the tenant permanently reside in the residence?  > and seem to think you know better  My comments were purely for gathering information. I did not use a condescending tone in any of them, though I think I detected it in yours.  > Your activism with SFBARF, is hard to look past in this topic.  Again you are trying to change the subject with guilt by association instead of answering the question.
So why mention a single decade old murder as evidence of the place being dangerous? If you can’t answer the question just admit it and we can move on.   Tacoma WA has had two murders this year. You must be frightened to death of even walking out your door.  [SEP] Someone asked why it was unsafe, and I provided links that might help the user understand why some people find it to be unsafe. The article was about more than just a single murder; it talks about violence in the community, high meth and other drug usage, and systemic violence against members of their own community for speaking out on violence within the tribe. These are not things that have changed much in the last decade (or more), and continue to be a problem (as they are in many tribal nations). Just because I don't agree doesn't mean that other people can't find that to be unsafe.   > Tacoma WA has had two murders this year. You must be frightened to death of even walking out your door.  Do we really have to circle back to my above reply? You're again jumping to conclusions based on zero facts about me, while still dodging the fact that you were condescending in your reply and redirecting this conversation back to me. 
Yeah, that's his trajectory. Stay in NJPW while he can work at that level, then move to WWE for the payday where he can take it easy, since WWE fans are easier to please and don't care about workrate or match auality (I.e. do what Nakamura is doing), then just become a pro gamer [SEP] >since WWE fans are easier to please and don't care about workrate  What a condescending generalization.
> maybe even made a 14-15 year old kid,who cares about the story enough to be excited and think up a silly name, cry  This is the key point here. Words are without context on the internet, thus why such a strong putdown is a bad idea because he has no idea who is on the receiving end of it. It could be some troll yes but it's equally likely to be some (now) heartbroken kid. [SEP] > such a strong putdown  Is this really true? I don't see him being condescending or rude at all. The question was legitimate, but I could certainly interpret it in a pointed manner, especially after reading the endless hate spewed on this forum and social media. Maro is probably tired of watching his friends and co-workers get insulted by the community for their hard work.
So it's not fun unless we choose Team Tyrion or Team Sansa? I guess for less sophisticated readers that need to hang their hat on something. I think the real pleasure in reading comes from appreciating the art of a master storyteller. For instance, having Dany getting mired in Mereen after being kick-ass for so long pissed off a lot of readers. They didn't want to see their favorite character making mistakes and otherwise being a complicated, flawed human. They just wanted fire and blood—they wanted a comic book plotline. Or take the people who hate Catelyn because she was so mean to Jon; they're all blind to the brilliant, mistake-prone, and complex character that Martin delivered.  [SEP] >I guess for less sophisticated readers that need to hang their hat on something.  That's incredibly condescending. By virtue of being a great storyteller, Martin makes people care about his characters. There's nothing wrong or shallow with getting invested in the story and its people.
I have a theory for why you and others picked the girl on the right over the left:  She's less intimidating. You are afraid of pretty girls and you gravitate towards the girl you feel less of a chance of being rejected by. It's a subconscious self-defense mechanism.  And I'm not even trolling. I would really like to compare some pictures of all those guys here who picked the girl on the right to see if my hypothesis holds any weight, but there would be no way to know if the pictures are really them or not. This sort of study would need to be in person. Although I'd like to point out that self-esteem and confidence is a bigger factor here than looks alone.  Also some quotes about the girl on the right from people who replied to you:  >The one on the right looks more "real".  -My hypothesis in action. I believe that here when given the choice between the two girls, the poster subconsciously weighed the chances of rejection and came to choose the girl on the right as the safer choice. After this bit of mental gymnastics, he then tries to reinforce his decision by assuming that the prettier girl is fake and shallow, and therefore would be a bad choice.  >The one on the right is cuter :3  -Nothing much to say about this. But I think that emoticon speaks enough for itself. I seriously doubt an attractive male sits behind that username. But that's not the least bit scientific, just intuition.  >The one on the right seems friendlier, and it seems that she has a little bit of a smile in her face. You can see it in her eyes. The one on the left didn't look so happy.  -Conformation bias all over the place. I stared at these two faces for minutes, and since they are both morphs of multiple women, the expressions are largely the same. It seems that because the one on the right has thinner lips, it seems like more of a smile. But as for eyes, I really think you can see the 'smile' in the morphed face on the left due to the more femininity and symmetry of the eyes.  >Me too, the left one looked a bit fatty to me.  -Not sure if this is a troll or just some serious reassurance at play. [SEP] > She's less intimidating. You are afraid of pretty girls and you gravitate towards the girl you feel less of a chance of being rejected by. It's a subconscious self-defense mechanism.  Nail on head there.  I've never meet a smoking hot chick who didn't speak condescending or had a vapid brain before 
>Oh, so which worker decides who is on the schedule for Saturday?   That's like saying 'Which of your friends arranges the party', it's not some insane wild impossible task talk amongst yourselves and choose.   >Which worker decides to put their own money up to expand production into another area?  This question is under the assumption that they're living under a market economy which very few socialists are a fan of, but again the point of socialism is that you decide for yourselves maybe one guy puts in the money or maybe you all put in a little amount, they can decide for themselves they're not stupid.   >Yes, it is "special non-achievable" socialism.   The overall condescension of your post isn't winning me over to your side, it's not like I spend ages reading about socialist economic systems and they go 'Oh shit, but if the workers have control who organises the schedule??? Socialism is unachievable' like cmon mate the questions you're asking are Socialism 101 stuff and you're acting like you've singlehandedly disproved an ideology.   [SEP] Except it's not like saying that. I didn't ask which friend will arrange the party, I asked which worker in this idiotic 'collectively controlled production' dream would make up the schedules of said workers.  You can't answer that because it shows a fault in your belief system.  >This question is under the assumption that they're living under a market economy which very few socialists are a fan of  But you just wrote that all socialism is, is that the workers control the production. Anyway, how do they decide for themselves? Maybe I don't want to expand production into another area, maybe I want to shut down production in that area.  Who decides? If the workers are all equal and in charge and singing kumbye-fuckin-ya, WHO DECIDES? And if we don't have a market economy, then who goes and seizes the production of the other 'workers' so they can expand?  My post is condescending because your ideology calls for it. I haven't disproved anything... History has, human nature has, reality has.
> Why do you consider the voluntary transaction of selling drugs "exploiting" anyone?  Wow, it is truly terrifying to me that you don't see that the same way as I do.  When it comes to addictive drugs, the demand for the product is created chemically, by manufacturing a dependence on the drug in the consumer. You get them hooked, and even if they no longer want to buy the product anymore, their physical dependency on the product makes it difficult for them to stop buying the product.  Because someone is physically dependent upon your product, that makes it unfair, in my eyes. This isn't a rational market actor; their dependency inflates their need for the product. Exploitation is defined as taking unfair advantage of someone, and so this seems like exploitation to me. [SEP] >their physical dependency on the product makes it difficult for them to stop buying the product.  I don't mean to sound condescending, but how is this different than, say, food? 
What does there no longer being "jew or greek" mean to you? There is neither male nor female either. Answer both consistently and apply them, it would help me understand what you think that means and how it relates to this.  Please exegete Ezekiel 37 for me, it would help me understand how you take Scripture. Do you think the NT conflicts with the OT? Do you just have a contradictory view of Scripture? How do you reconcile the two.  Randomly spitting out verses as proof texts doesn't change other texts, that is not sound. It seems like you want to just brush off specific texts in favor of "general truths". This is the common theme of CT folks, but I am asking for SPECIFIC exegesis.   Have a spurgeon quote and a bonnar quote...  "Every word of prophecy is big with meaning. Hence it must be most carefully and exactly interpreted. To attach a general meaning to a whole chapter, as is frequently done, shows not only grievous irreverence for the Divine Word, but much misconception of the real nature of that language in which it is written. Yet such is often the practice of many expositors of prophecy. They will take up a chapter of Isaiah, and tell you that it refers to the future glory of the Christian Church; and that is the one idea which they gather from the whole chapter, or sometimes from a series of chapters. Their system does not admit of interpreting verse by verse and clause by clause, and affixing an exact and definite sense to each. Bring them to this test, and their system gives way. It looks fair and plausible enough, so long as they can persuade you that the whole chapter is one scene, out of which it is merely designed that one grand idea should be extracted; bur bring it to the best of minute and precise interpretation, and its nakedness is at once discovered. Many prophecies become in this way a mere waste of words. What might be expressed in one sentence, is beaten out over a whole chapter; nay, sometimes over a whole book. These expositors think that there is nothing in prophecy, except that Jew and Gentile are all to be gathered in, and made one in Christ. Prophet after prophet is raised up, vision after vision is given, and yet nothing is declared but this one idea! Every chapter almost of Isaiah foretells something about the future glory of the world; and every chapter presents it to us in some new aspect, opening up new scenes, and pointing out new objects; but, according to the scheme of some, every chapter sets forth the same idea, reiterates the same objects, and depicts the same scenes. Is not this handling of the Word of God deceitfully?"  (Horatius Bonar quoted in "Future Israel" by Barry Horner, pg.166-167)  Commenting on Ez.37:1-10 in 1864 "The meaning of the text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel...There shall not be two, nor ten, nor twelves, but one - one Israel praising one God, serving one king, and that one king the Son of David, the descended Messiah...If there be meaning in words this must be the meaning of this chapter. I wish to never learn the art of tearing God's meaning out of his own words. If there be anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage-a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away - must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land, and that a king is to rule over them." (Spurgeon, from "Future Israel" by Barry Horner, pg.12)  Please, respond to these two quotes and exegete Ezekiel 37. My view doesn't put alot on Ezekiel, it puts alot on taking EVERY PASSAGE OF THE BIBLE seriously and consistently. Ezekiel 37 is simply ONE PLACE of many. Thanks and look forward to a real response. [SEP] > What does there no longer being "jew or greek" mean to you?   It means that the boundary markers between the ethnic groups that used to divide those who were Abraham's family from those who were not have been broken down because of the work of the Messiah. In the context of Galatians, this means that Jewish and gentile Christians should eat together, not separately in recognition that they are now part of the same family. The broader application of that point is that since God has one family, not two, the united jew+greek family is the true family of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.  > There is neither male nor female either.  That's actually not what Paul says. He doesn't stick to the same structure when he gets to male and female. Says there is neither Jew nor Greek and there is neither slave nor free, but he then says, there is not male and female. This is cognate with the language of Genesis 1. But that is neither here nor there. Paul's point stands in contrast to the view expressed by the Talmudic blessing in which men bless God for not making them women. Paul says instead that maleness and femaleness are no irrelevant to one's status with respect to the Messiah.   > Please exegete Ezekiel 37 for me  It's a great passage.  > The hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out by the spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me all around them; there were very many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. 3 He said to me, “Mortal, can these bones live?” I answered, “O Lord God, you know.” 4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. 6 I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”  We start with Ezekiel in the valley of the dry bones, a clear metaphor for the plight of Israel. God's question to Ezekiel and then his response indicate that God intends to restore Israel. This is also an important passage because it holds the beginnings of Jewish thought about resurrection which would be developed more in Daniel and in the intertestamental period before being dramatically refocused by the resurrection of Jesus.  > 7 So I prophesied as I had been commanded; and as I prophesied, suddenly there was a noise, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 I looked, and there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no breath in them. 9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, mortal, and say to the breath: Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.” 10 I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.  God does as he promised and Ezekiel sees the bones reconstituted.  > 11 Then he said to me, “Mortal, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are cut off completely.’ 12 Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people; and I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people. 14 I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you on your own soil; then you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken and will act, says the Lord.”  The metaphor is made explicit, and Ezekiel, equipped with his vision from the Valley, is told to take the message to Israel in person.  > 15 The word of the Lord came to me: 16 Mortal, take a stick and write on it, “For Judah, and the Israelites associated with it”; then take another stick and write on it, “For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with it”; 17 and join them together into one stick, so that they may become one in your hand. 18 And when your people say to you, “Will you not show us what you mean by these?” 19 say to them, Thus says the Lord God: I am about to take the stick of Joseph (which is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with it; and I will put the stick of Judah upon it,[e] and make them one stick, in order that they may be one in my hand.  God provides another symbol of the restoration of Israel, this time concerning the reunification of the norther and southern kingdoms.  > 20 When the sticks on which you write are in your hand before their eyes, 21 then say to them, Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God.  Again the metaphor is made explicit, and the unified kingdom is to come under the rule of one king; the people will be cleansed and no longer practice the evil that resulted in exile in the first place. The last sentence provides a summary of the finished state which is reminiscent of the language used in Jerimiah 31 about the new covenant.  > 24 My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes.  Now the passage becomes puzzling. We may have thought we were hearing straightforward prediction of what was to come (the northern and southern kingdom’s united under one king). But now God says that the king will be David, who is long dead. This is clearly becoming, therefore, a Messianic prophecy: the Davidic heir who is the shepherd of God’s people.  > 25 They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children’s children shall live there forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever.  The promised inheritance is guaranteed forever because of the rule of the Davidic Messiah. The land is one part of the promise to Abraham (the other being a large family). But the fact that it is talked about here as the specific land in which Israel’s ancestors lived does not nullify the development of the promise of the land by the psalmist and prophets that I cited in my previous comment.  > 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary among them forevermore. 27 My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.   Here the other part of the promise to Abraham is guaranteed, the large family. The future covenant is promised and again the language involves God being in the midst of his people and the phrase “I will be their God and they will be my people.”  > 28 Then the nations shall know that I the LORD sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them forevermore.  The final promise is that those who are not God’s people will look at those who are and know that God is truly at work, making a holy people for himself.  > Randomly spitting out verses as proof texts doesn't change other texts, that is not sound. It seems like you want to just brush off specific texts in favor of "general truths". This is the common theme of CT folks, but I am asking for SPECIFIC exegesis.  Come on man. I’m not randomly spitting out verses. These are specific texts that seem to be in conflict with what you are claiming. I was hoping you would explain them from your point of view, not be condescending to me. Why is it okay for you to ask me for specific exegesis, but you will not comment on the specific verses that I put forward?  I have don’t think I have much of an issue with those two huge quotes. I would want to say that we should not be so rigid in trying to ferret out the exact meaning of each individual word that we miss the overall sweep of the prophet’s thought. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.  > Please, respond to these two quotes and exegete Ezekiel 37.  You don’t have to give me a to-do list; I am happy to engage with all your thoughts, but would like you to respond the things I put forward in my first comment too; this has to be a two way dialogue.   > My view doesn't put alot on Ezekiel, it puts alot on taking EVERY PASSAGE OF THE BIBLE seriously and consistently.  Ok, but surely everyone says that their view is the one that takes every passage of the Bible seriously.   > Thanks and look forward to a real response.  I know you don’t mean it, but this seems like you are taking an antagonistic tone toward me. I recognize that you may be frustrated with previous discussions, but you could be a bit more charitable and give your interlocutor the benefit of the doubt and presume that he will give a “real” response. 
Except there are countries with healthcare systems which are remarkably similar to Obamacare. Germany for example is essentially a better implemented version of Obamacare with public options. You are required by law to purchase either private insurance or insurance from one of their numerous public nonprofits, and the penalties are far more strict than Obamacare's. You can, IIRC, be jailed for not purchasing health coverage in Germany.   No, it's not exactly the same thing but saying "there are differences so they're really not at all similar" is a pretty disingenuous argument. Places like Germany and Switzerland have made it pretty clear that a system in the mold of the ACA can work quite well if properly implemented.  [SEP] > You can, IIRC, be jailed for not purchasing health coverage in Germany.  In what possible universe is this anything like what Obamacare is today? You don't even have to pay the penalty under Obamacare, and, even then, it's like $600.   The Obamacare mandate is impossibly weak, and there are zero price controls.   Comparing Obamacare with other multipayer systems elsewhere in the world is next to impossible because the ACA was originally written Heritage Foundation as a corporate giveaway to the health insurance companies.   The fact that you are sitting here condescending to someone who is arguing, correctly, that Obamacare is a health insurance company welfare package demonstrates just how far right our country has been dragged because Democrats are chasing the mythical moderate Republican voter. Surprise! That doesn't exist. 
>Okay trolie, that's a lame analogy. The Austrian-Hungarian empire was a good time for Hungary but we were not colonised by them, we were a ruling partner of the empire so you just failed. LOL Did you think this was an insult? Everybody in Hungary thinks the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was a good thing, it is officially called the 'Happy Peace Times' in history books.   Its actually kinda sad when you claim to be a patriot and don't even know your own country's history. Dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary didn't come to existence until 1867 as a result of a compromise. Before that Hungarians were full subjects of Austrians. Even after that Austrian emperor was the ruler of Hungary as well. So you claim that Hungary was equal is laughable. Also Czechs thrived within HRE which was a German lead project, and then under Austrian rule.   Edit: And I bet it was called "Happy Peace Times" cause being subjects of superior culture and people must have been pretty peaceful, despite that small riot in 1848 but happy times.  [SEP] > Its actually kinda sad when you claim to be a patriot and don't even know your own country's history.  Pointless condescending babble, even you know that this is bullshit and in bad faith  > Dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary didn't come to existence until 1867 as a result of a compromise. Dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary didn't come to existence until 1867 as a result of a compromise.  Yeah and? This sort of thing happened everywhere all throughout history. What is your point exactly? Nobody In Hungary cares what the fuck happened in like 1850, nobody in Hungary is demanding reparations from Austria or calling them evil huwites, there is no animosity between Austrians and Hungarians, in fact we both have positive views of each other today. Not everybody is a whining failure who cries about muh colonialism and slavery that ended forever ago.   > Even after that Austrian emperor was the ruler of Hungary as well.  And we like the guy to this day. Queen Sissi our favorite female historical figure, we even have statues and a bridge dedicated to her in Budapest.   > So you claim that Hungary was equal is laughable.   I didn't say it was equal, I said it was a ruling partner, which is a fact. You seriously think people care about this stuff today? What is your point exactly?  > Also Czechs thrived within HRE which was a German lead project, and then under Austrian rule.  And, does it really bother you that nobody in the Czech Republic whines about being a victim of the evil huwite nazi Germans in 2018?
It has nothing to do with being desperate. That's an assumption on your part and more often than not, assumptions end up making you look foolish. I was looking more for an open conversation about the subject not Passive aggressive insulting. Life tip, work on your people skills. Everytime I see you comment on a post, it's filled with snarky, passive aggressivity. It tells me alot about your character in real life. Now, moving forward, I know LR gohan is a beast, I'm fully aware of that. LR gohan hits hard, has a great leader skill for mono int and has good links. SS4 Vegeta has a better leader skill for his respective type, tanks, doesn't need any help from orbs to do damage consistently although LR gohan only needs 5 or 6 orbs to out damage the ss4's, also has great links, better team possibilities, chance to dodge super Atk and SS4 vegeta being far more obtainable has to count for something, even though how easy/hard a card is to get doesn't take away from the actual card itself being good or not. LR gohan has a higher ceiling when it comes to damage and damage alone. Since when has the best card in the game been decided solely on damage output? He doesn't counter anything, he doesn't tank, few people will have him(I do but I'm really desperate for some reason). If you're planning on running int gohan and bringing Nuke items to every battle, go for it. He needs items to be a truly, far and away better damage dealer, enough so to even be in the discussion for the best card in the game. That or he needs help from other cards that change orbs. SS4 Vegeta does what he does on any logically put together team without help from any other card. Now, without Passive aggressively insulting(I know it's hard for you) have a discussion with me, a human being, about how you feel about the analysis. I would enjoy that. No need to be an asshole. It's a discussion about cards on a mobile game. We're not saving lives here. It's a trivial matter.  [SEP] I can't help but giggle every time someone tries to go psych 101 on a reddit post. We're not even talking about you in the comment you responded to, it'll be ok. You gotta learn to keep high school psych in your pocket online.  > SS4 Vegeta has a better leader skill for his respective type  Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that his type still has the lowest damage output and clear speed without a relevant upgrade in ability to survive. Just doesn't matter if his leader skill is "better" if the end result is still an inferior result.  > Tanks  INT has these so I don't see your point. INT is one of the most defensive types.   > doesn't need any help from orbs to do damage consistently although LR gohan only needs 5 or 6 orbs to out damage the ss4's  Gohan needs only 4 orbs to out-damage Goku by over 50%. This means he needs even less to out-damage Goku at all. I don't think he needs any to out-damage Vegeta. Source your math if you disagree.  > better team possibilities  AGL is currently the worst available team of the four possible so no, not really. They have the worst offense without a relevant defensive upgrade.   > chance to dodge super Atk  Not overly relevant, that's a double layered RNG ability. I play STR exclusively and Goku as dodged supers for me exactly 3 times ever.  > also has great links  Gohan has the same links of relevance Vegeta has so that's a pointless distinction.   > SS4 vegeta being far more obtainable has to count for something  It doesn't when discussing who is better. "I don't own him" is not a reasonable rebuttal to the ability of a card.  > LR gohan has a higher ceiling when it comes to damage and damage alone. Since when has the best card in the game been decided solely on damage output?  When it's output is so high that nothing else is relevant. Goku is better than Vegeta on this merit as well.   > If you're planning on running int gohan and bringing Nuke items to every battle, go for it. He needs items to be a truly, far and away better damage dealer, enough so to even be in the discussion for the best card in the game.  This is not true, and made up. It based on nothing. Source your math if you disagree. Also, I already bring damage items. I never need to heal so... what are you using your slots on?   > That or he needs help from other cards that change orbs  Multiple high quality INT's change orbs so this isn't a problem even slightly.  > SS4 Vegeta does what he does on any logically put together team without help from any other card  No he doesn't, because he's worse at it. He is the worst of the big 4.   > Now, without Passive aggressively insulting(I know it's hard for you)  This is why you have to leave high school psych at the door. It always results in someone trying to call someone else out for being passive aggressive and condescending and then immediately being passive aggressive and condescending themselves, destroying any credibility they had to begin with. 
I may be, I may not be. That wasn't really my point. I don't know if you can filter the thread to only see my responses, but I've tried to explain in other responses why I made this. But, to answer your question: I have a family that's very close and helps with our son. My son is a pretty good kid overall - he has tantrums and cries because I gave him the brown bear instead of the white bear to sleep, etc., my wife does not work, but is studying for her master's, so he goes to daycare 3 days a week. We're financially stable. Overall we have a much easier time of raising a child, circumstance-wise, than a lot of people. All of that goes into these feelings that I have about liking parenting, but for the first 5 months he was born, we did not have any of the stuff we have now, and things were really hard - and I still loved it. I think circumstances can definitely, DEFINITELY, color how you feel in a variety of situations, but I'd like to think that who I am as a person colors it more, and the only point of my post was to say that I've really enjoyed being a father so far. [SEP] > I'd like to think that who I am as a person colors it more, and the only point of my post was to say that I've really enjoyed being a father so far.  See, that's the part that I have a problem with. To give one example, my second child is super easy, my first has been challenging at every stage. If I had just one child, she was as easygoing as my second, I'd have a completely different outlook on parenting in general, based entirely on external factors. Your initial post, and this line in your second, come off a little condescending, as if the difference can be attributed to outlook.
Actually, music artists generally make a bulk of their revenue through concerts. Pirating songs is denying money to the publishers more than the artists.  Game developers, on the other hand, only have a single source of revenue for their work. Thousands and thousands of man-hours are poured into AAA games (and often indie games!). To act as if they deserve no compensation in exchange for the enjoyment their product provides is extremely selfish.  If everyone collectively switched to Pirating music, the artists could still live comfortable lives, producing music and making money off of live performances. If everyone switched to Pirating games, there would be no more games.   I believe piracy is stealing and wrong in both instances, but is arguably more harmful to game developers than music artists. [SEP] > Actually, music artists generally make a bulk of their revenue through concerts. Pirating songs is denying money to the publishers more than the artists.  Yeah, that's because everyone pirates the shit, the music industry has been decimated because of it. Anyone who has ever illegally downloaded a song contributed that, so his question is absolutely legitimate.   It wasn't always this way.. there were plenty of massively successful bands that seldom toured, plenty of money USED to be made selling records. You can't condescend to software pirates while you are a music pirate. It's the same crime. 
>Because without privatization, we'd have no idea that the river is worthless to begin with! And information like that is extremely valuable.  It's not worthless when it's government controlled. Privatization makes it worthless.  >Not an argument. Try again.  How is that not an argument? You said a thing, I said you were wrong. If you're looking for sources, I would ask you to provide them first.  >Unless you consider mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange to be theft, then Capitalism isn't theft. That was easy. Okay, your turn.  Capitalism isn't based on mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange. It's based on exploitation. A worker makes a thing, and then a capitalist takes it. How is that not theft?    >How is your inability to make a coherent argument my fault?  My arguments are perfectly coherent. It's not my fault you can't understand them. Or even read them, apparently.  [SEP] > It's not worthless when it's government controlled. Privatization makes it worthless.  So why should anything not be government-controlled?  > How is that not an argument?  Because just saying "nu uh!" is meaningless. What I want to hear is "You are wrong because..." That's an argument.  > It's based on exploitation. A worker makes a thing, and then a capitalist takes it. How is that not theft?  Because the worker voluntarily consented to having the thing they make taken...? You can't steal something that's given to you freely.  > My arguments are perfectly coherent.  Not really, no. At best, you're that girl in college who would just dismiss any argument made with a condescending smirk and a roll of the eyes.
For those ents looking for a Mid-America, lesser costly, much more comfy festival there's always Wakarusa. I suppose the line-ups a little less mainstream but its cheaper and smaller, which I prefer to the huge mega-festie shit shows (like Rothbury, Chella and Roo, which all seem to get draining after enough years).   edit: Though if you go to Coachella, I'll be jealous you get to see Gogol Bordello and Chemical Brothers. [SEP] > I suppose the line-ups a little less mainstream (sorry, no Kanye)  You probably didn't mean this to be incredibly condescending to anyone who wants to go to Coachella, but it comes off that way.
I get that there is a market and that some people really do buy every single one of the Fluxx variations, including yourself. I understand that there are subtle tweaks in the different versions.    >even just having different Action cards with new wording, or different ways of Goal cards requiring you to combine Keepers (and Creepers) differently, will often change things up enough to stay fresh with each new variation deck.    Fluxx follows an almost identical business model to Munchkin. There isn't enough game and flavor to it to keep people playing them for any substantial amount of time so they tailor the game to try to hit as many niches as possible with minimal tweaks. Instead of trying to design a great game that appeals to some, they throw out minimal effort to appeal to specific audiences.    Out of curiosity, would you rather have these cheap reiterations in different themes or fully fleshed-out board games that really integrate the themes you love? Would you rather see a silly, grail-hunting quest game for Monty Python, or a scenario-based game set in the world of Oz based on the multitude of books in that universe? I get it, the themes bring people in, but it's thin at best. Why not make unique card games that really feel like those worlds rather than churn out the same game? [SEP] > Fluxx follows an almost identical business model to Munchkin. There isn't enough game and flavor to it to keep people playing them for any substantial amount of time so they tailor the game to try to hit as many niches as possible with minimal tweaks. Instead of trying to design a great game that appeals to some, they throw out minimal effort to appeal to specific audiences.  >  > Out of curiosity, would you rather have these cheap reiterations in different themes or fully fleshed-out board games that really integrate the themes you love? Would you rather see a silly, grail-hunting quest game for Monty Python, or a scenario-based game set in the world of Oz based on the multitude of books in that universe? I get it, the themes bring people in, but it's thin at best. Why not make unique card games that really feel like those worlds rather than churn out the same game?  /u/CoconutPete44, I wonder if you re-read what you wrote, you would realize how condescending it sounds?   In the space of the first paragraph, you're questioning my taste (and that of many others) by saying flat-out that Fluxx is not a great game...isn't that a matter of your opinion vs. that of others? I personally don't consider it "great," but even if I consider it merely "very good" or even "enough fun to keep buying new variations," then who are you to make it sound like I'm less than adequate because of that?   In the second paragraph, you indicate - perhaps without realizing it as consciously - that I am (and other folks that enjoy Fluxx also are) somehow less than adequate because the games are simple to learn and fast to play. Some of us prefer these exact two characteristics in a tabletop game, man, and are looking for something straightforward and light. That doesn't mean you can't employ strategy while playing; I find myself using strategy in Fluxx all the time. If I want a game that's got even less strategy and is even more simple to pick up and learn, there's always Cards Against Humanity. I'm the mod of /r/CardsAgainstHumanity by the way...I suppose you're going to rag on that game next? I just updated my flair on this sub to show CAH. I see your flair on this sub seems to be for Euphoria, a game I'm not familiar with but I just looked it up and it sounds like it's much more heavy on the strategy. That's fine, if that's what you like. It's not everyone else's cup of tea. Or maybe it would appeal to someone who likes both light and heavy (I can certainly get into heavier games when I have the time, but often on game nights I only have 2-3 hours overall with my friends, and we do other things within that time so we all prefer quicker/easier/lighter games...Fluxx, CAH, Red Dragon Inn, Munchkin, King of Tokyo, Weed, Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards, Catan, etc.   Now Catan...I've never played beyond the original and (because of kids in the family, plus we all like pirates) Catan Junior, so maybe I'm talking out of my hat here. But THERE'S one that seems to fit the criteria of your criticism: a very popular board game that has lots of "skins" and seems to be re-written to appeal to specific fan bases (Star Trek: Catan, anyone?). A bit more involved for a new player to get into than Fluxx, or even King of Tokyo, but still easy enough to pick up and all...and in many ways, easier to learn than Munchkin (and both Catan and Munchkin take roughly the same amount of time to play, if you have the time). So is Catan just as bad as Fluxx and Munchkin?   For my day job, I work at a website where I post news about upcoming TV-on-DVD (and TV-on-Blu) titles from the studios (for example, this afternoon I'll be posting about Bates Motel - Season 3 on DVD and BD, which Universal Studios announces today). All the time, as I post news announcing DVDs for shows from the 60s/70s/80s/90s, I constantly get people asking "why is ANY studio releasing THAT stupid show on DVD? This sucks!" I remind them that they have their favorite TV shows, and other people have their own favorite shows...and possibly each side could call them "guilty pleasures" if that helps folks sleep at night, but you like what you like, and you buy what you enjoy. And just because someone else buys something that YOU don't like, it doesn't at all take away from what you enjoy and purchase. Just let the other guy have it. Your original post in this discussion...  > So serious Fluxx related question, I know this must be profitable for Looney Labs, but as a designer, wouldn't you get bored of all this reskinning of the same game?  >  > Throw in characters and objects, balance slightly, add 1 or 2 silly rules/actions, print it. I've made my own custom version of Fluxx, it took me a couple days. It's not difficult by any means.   ...is basically the same thing. You're really voicing your thought - and it's just your opinion, right? RIGHT? - that nobody should be buying more Fluxx at this point, because it's just all the same thing. But how does it hurt you if I keep buying more Fluxx? When I don't want to buy it any more, I'll stop. How does it affect you either way? Do you think the presence of Fluxx on the market is keeping the type of games you enjoy from being made? 
Why not subscribe to both? You could come here when you want to engage only with those who share your beliefs, and visit r/Mormon to participate in constructive discussion and debate when you’re up for it.  Believe it or not, many non-believers sincerely want to better understand the faithful perspective on some of the more controversial issues surrounding LDS. Limiting or cutting off communication serves no one.  I was completely open-minded about LDS UNTIL I started coming to this sub, and that’s unfortunate given that the active members in my life are truly some of my favorite people.  P.S. Full disclosure — I’m a nevermo. Just realized my nevermo flair doesn’t show up on this sub. Apologies if that wasn’t clear in any of my previous posts. [SEP] >You could come here when you want to engage only with those who share your beliefs, and visit /rMormon to participate in constructive discussion and debate when you’re up for it.  These are not mutually exclusive. Also, the condescending "let's have grown-up conversations when you're ready" sneer is really bad missionary work.  > Believe it or not, many non-believers sincerely want to better understand the faithful perspective on some of the more controversial issues surrounding LDS. Limiting or cutting off communication serves no one.  As a non-believer turned Mormon who spends too much time on reddit, I agree with the first part of your statement but not second. Reddit is a great platform to hear all kinds of perspectives and narratives about the church, and the reason for that is because certain conversations are only possible to have on certain subs. This sub limits certain kinds of communication, but instead of "serv[ing] no one," it's allowed me to witness some really amazing conversations that could only happen in a sub like this. The payoffs of the moderation here outweigh by orders of magnitude what we lose by refusing to become yet another "open" discussion forum.  >I was completely open-minded about LDS UNTIL I started coming to this sub,   I'm not sure how reading the content here makes you less open-minded. If you meant less amenable to the church, then that's fine, maybe our religion isn't your cup of tea. Which, again, is fine, but don't expect me to take seriously the opinion of someone who wants change in this sub with literally no stake in the game other then to get back pats from exmo's.
 Better social game, she made no enemies and people respected her. Reynold and Eddie HATE Sherri and the other faves have no respect for her   Kept her 2 person alliance a secret and overcame 4 others to prevail on Matsing   Got Russell to vote for Malcolm to go instead of her, pretty underrated move on her part. Showed Russell had more faith and trust in her than the physically stronger Malcolm   Awesome in challenges   Dictated the Artis vote out, which was key to that alliance making the end game   Actually had to avoid being voted out at 2 tribals on the merged Kalabaw tribe, she should have been first out but used her work ethic and social (promising to get Malcolm over) and physical prowess to stick around. If New Gota had lost twice I very much doubt Sherri survives the first one   Was a good ally with Malcolm, He even said in an exit interview how someone had said that to him that he was spoiled by how good Denise was with him. Sherri voted out Laura to keep someone who hated her (Reynold)   Was able to betray Malcolm to be able to win the game (maybe Sherri will too but at this point she is just a goat and would lose in any F3 combo)   Good final tribal performance, had tonnes of respect from the jurors and deservedly won after playing a calm and calculating game which may have not had the bells and whistles of other games but was very effective   Got Abi's vote... says it all  I don't even dislike Sherri but I do really like Denise and comparing the two is harsh [SEP] > Better social game, she made no enemies and people respected her. Reynold and Eddie HATE Sherri and the other faves have no respect for her  What? Did you even see/read any of the post season interviews of Denise's season? She wasn't hated but people didn't "respect" her. They felt she was condescending toward them and that they were always talking to their therapist.. She was not respected.
How the fuck wasn't Diana in line to the throne? she was due to be Queen after Elizabeth.   Elizabeth -> Diana -> Kate Middleton  but if William and Harry had dies then it would have been her third son and his wife instead of Kate Middleton, so it would been   Elizabeth -> Diana -> Kate Middleton -> Mofaita (or something)  I think I have a good idea about royal sucession, considering I am British. [SEP] >I think I have a good idea about royal sucession, considering I am British.  While you don't know shit about the order to the throne, your condescending pretentiousness does make me believe you're British. 
There's lots of sand in your vagina.  As a theist gasp, when I say I'll pray for you, I pray for you. I wait a minute am a person who means what he says.  But wait.. What I'm doing is useless so I can fuck off right?   No. I don't think its useless. And I like it when people say they'll pray for me, because I believe it actually does something. I also happen to know many atheists who can listen to someone say 'I'll pray for you' without getting a huge stick up their ass. Be that guy. [SEP] >when I say I'll pray for you, I pray for you.  You're in the vast minority then, at least as far as my experience goes.  I've had many, many people say "I'll pray for you" to me with a smug, condescending tone and expression. They clearly had no intentions of doing so. I've had just as many people resort to saying "I'll pray for you" as a means of ending a conversation about anything. I'm not talking about religious debates or discussions about marriage equality. I'm talking about things like "I prefer cheddar cheese," responded to with "Ugh. I'll pray for you."  If you, someone who believes in a higher power, tells me that you're going to invoke that higher power for my benefit and I trust that you'll follow through, then I'll be thankful for your intention and I'll keep my mouth shut about anything else.
WTF? I'm sure you read the first line of my comment right? This is to eliminate spam post which has been increasing as of lately who have been promoting self-blog and shitty MRR post. I don't know how often you visit r/Nepal but there is around 5-7 post that is being deleted weekly that most of you users don't know of. Ask the mods and you shall receive your answers. BTW what so old about engaging in 10 discussions? Me being here every day, I look at all users history that seems new. Those that post 95% of spam are from new users whose account are less than 30 days and have less than 10-20 discussion/comments in history. While 5 % are from new accounts from tourist wanting to know more about Nepal. Most new account don;t come to post shit, but rather engage in discussion. Those that come to post shit are usually looking to post shit at r/Nepal without any discussions!  Btw what so hard to engage in a 10 discussion post? I won't be surprised if one of those advertisement post username is by you. And why do you have to keep switching accounts? Are you being banned in another sub because you broke the rules? So sad....that you have to make a new account. WTF? get back to earth Dude and follow the rules!!  Edit : It been only 2 minutes and you have already downvoted my comment. Makes sense! No Wonder some here at r/nepal are wondering why we have spam frequently on Top, while original opinion views are getting downvoted below them. No wonder because we have people who kill messengers and opinions instead of spam. Thank god I only downvote those that spam rather than their opinions or views while upvoting those I agree with.  Here see this example of spam post and look at the user history  http  This post won't be here in few hours at r/nepal but you will still be able to access it through the link.  Edit 2: Btw your account is since 2015 and you have 310 post karma. But your history shows only 3 post with 52 Karma. Your account looks sketchy as shit! I won't be surprised if you are one of those spammy posters in other subreddits that was banned and had to create new account. [SEP] Some of us happen to have a life and don't spend every waking moment on reddit counting votes and keeping a spreadsheet on who posted what, when, how many times a day. I'm not married to my account. I can switch to however many accounts I want. You got a problem? New accounts don't immediately mean spam, nor do old accounts scream of thoughtful and meaningful posts. Also, having an old account doesn't give you any right to start tagging new accounts as spam.  >Btw what so hard to engage in a 10 discussion post?  Maybe some prefer to lurk rather than active participation? Maybe they only want to comment or post about stuffs they really know about. But no, according to your "rules", they'll be tagged as spam. Way to increase participation in this barely hanging there sub.   This is a community sub, not your personal playground. If you "regular posters" want to turn it into a sub so that only 5 of can talk to each other, why not open your own sub and apply your dictatorship there? Fuck off with your old accounts deserve all the posting/commenting rights attitude.   Think a post is spam? Report it. Move on. Your hands won't shrivel and fall off. And since you happen to be on reddit all the time counting karma, why do you even have a problem? Just stop with your condescending attitude just because you have an old account.  Thanks for assuming I downvoted you. Typical "MUH DOWNVOTES PROVE I'M RIGHT!11!!1!!!!!!". Also, assume whatever kind of poster you think I am. Your opinion doesn't mean jack shit to me. I am not here to karma whore, or stalk every redditor that I interact with and that's enough for me.
The entire 99%, according to the 1%. No joke. Used to work with/for a lot of wealthy twats. If they're not middle class, they're jealous of the poor for having it so easy. [SEP] > If they're not middle class, they're jealous of the poor for having it so easy.  It's actually pretty funny growing up poor and dating up to girls better off than me. You see that even though you were taught many bad habits (don't get me started on my parents' finances) the upper class children do too . The artificial stresses they impart on themselves are unnecessary. And I don't mean that in a condescending or judgmental way, I mean it's kind of sad how worked up they get over a couch or table not fitting perfectly with the rest of the "decor". How important they actually consider it to do everything in a "proper" way. All these artificial rules, and restraints, and handicaps they give themselves are taught from their parents. For all the money they have over me, it seems like they don't really enjoy what they have or do any better. Yet they have all of these resources and options they simply shut themselves off from because it's not "the right way to do things". It isn't consistent with the image that they have to have.  There's a scene from Game of Thrones where Hodor (huge motherfucker that is incredibly gentle and passive) gets captured and one of the guys looks at him in disgust and says, "If I were you, I'd be king of the fucking world." It's sort of that feeling. You need to have security in your food, shelter, and other Maslow needs. Poor people don't and the psychological distraction makes it damn near impossible to move up without incredible willpower. People who have never had their basic needs threatened have no proper way of gauging just how small some of their problems are and how much of a boon it is to never worry about those things.
Sigh... If you will feel better, substitute the word "HARPAZO" which means: Catch up or take by force. And yes it was taught in the same scripture it is mentioned...   >1 Thess 4: 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.  Ignorance is bliss... The English word "Rapture" has come to mean something ADDITIONAL to some today. It was originally actually the English word-for word- translation of the Latin Vulgate word "rapturo" which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word "harpazo". So indeed, the word "RAPTURE" is in the bible. HOWEVER, today, many take the word "rapture" and assign the words "pre-trib" to the front of it... Unfortunately this is a lie according to 2 Thess 2:3-4...  [SEP] > Ignorance is bliss  This is condescending and presumptive.  We both know what I mean by the word 'Rapture'. Quibbling over the Greek or the Latin doesn't change that the 'Rapture' -- the doctrine to which that word commonly refers -- did not exist before the 19th century. Paul doesn't teach a 'Rapture'. Pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, whatever. The concept isn't in the Bible.
No, you have it backwards. The point is that childfree people don't and won't ever know. They're the ones who get pissy when people say that, and that's who we're talking about. The specifics of which groups of caregivers understand what it's like are irrelevant. We're talking about those who don't get it and despite there being scientific proof, they still get pissy when people tell them they don't get it.   Parents just happen to be the biggest group of caregivers out there so of course you're going to hear it from them the most.  [SEP] > No, you have it backwards. The point is that childfree people don't and won't ever know. They're the ones who get pissy when people say that, and that's who we're talking about. The specifics of which groups of caregivers understand what it's like are irrelevant.   You don't really seem to get it. Many "childfree" people have been caregivers for children, know exactly what it's like, and that's why they never want to have their own  I have three stepsons and I would never say "You don't know, because you don't have children", because it's rude and condescending as hell. And the fact is, many people who don't have children DO know what it's like, and that's why they chose the other route. But the most annoying thing about the phrase is that so many people use it as a defense for their bad actions, or a way to invalidate the other party's opinion. I've yet to see it used in a non-dickish way. It's a rude phrase. 
Welcome the NG+ where most of the people that summons you are assholes that will gank your sorry ass or Tryhards that equip anti-backstab and multi-stack buffs and spam the banana dance to get a cheap win. And yes I still say NG PvP with the SM 3m of SL150 people are great. you get the excitement of fighting people who are in love with their fashion and actually has skill [SEP] > you get the excitement of fighting people who are in love with their fashion and actually has skill  I got invaded by Silver Mont while at like 86 Million SM...are you going to tell me he has no skill and doesn't fashion souls? Seriously, this notion that everyone who has a high SM or SL or plays in NG+ is an asshole who sucks at the game and never uses what they want is just pathetic. I have yet to met a more condescending gaming community yet.   There's just more people in NG+ so you'll see more of it. But it doesn't mean every single person is like that and that ONLY the good, skilled, players stay in NG because I've been invaded by plenty of "asshole" setups there.
"Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to your level and beat you with experience."  You have made an ass of yourself in this thread and apparently have quite a reputation besides. I really tried to be nice here, why won't you let me?  Your vitriol, half assed "facts," completely biassed viewpoints, inability to see anything from any point of view but your own, poor manners, and general grumpiness makes it really hard to talk to you. You aren't going to change my opinion, you don't have the requisites to do so. I am not trying to change yours, though I doubt any evidence would come close to doing so. All I tried to was shed some light on a subject you have no interest in seeing.  I see why /r/mensrights and /r/theredpill are so angry at feminists. If this is what arguing with you is like, I'd be pretty mad too. I have a rather dubious relationship with feminism anyway and automatically put my defenses up when someone proudly announces they are a feminist. It's not you, it's the label you proudly display. Others have been quite hurtful to me under that logo and frankly I'm sick of it.  Your opinions don't make you a bad person, your actions do. So far, you have been extremely rude, mean, and confrontational to me, someone who approached you trying to be nice. What does that say about you?  Trying to talk to you only leads to argument. When arguing with someone like you it is completely fruitless and therefore pointless and frustrating, like arguing with my children during the terrible twos. I don't have time or energy for pointless frustration. You are welcome to your opinions, and that's fine. But your opinions about me seem pretty far off base, as I tried explaining. You seem to have a hard time understanding the idea of live and let live, and are very adamant about trying to either destroy me or bully me into changing my opinion. Neither will work and both are tactics of the young and angry. Good luck, be sure to copypasta this all over tumblr and in whatever women's studies class you are taking. [SEP] >besides. I'm really trying to be nice here, why won't you let me?  You are delusional. You were nice for the first couple comments and I was nice in return. Then you took your daily redpill halfway through a comment and turned into a condescending ass.   Apparently you thought negging me would cause my self-esteem to crumble and I'd forget that I continue to use solid argument and facts that I've either cited or would be happy to cite.   It's hard to convince me of how badly I've lost these arguments when the OP, /u/YankeeQuebec already complimented my debate technique on this very post.  > bully me into changing my opinion  Oh honey, you started bullying. All I had to do is cut-and-paste your own assholishness and apply it in return. It's really easy to do when you're dealing with a hypocrite. 
Hmmm... idk but I feel like Bossip is being a bit messy with this headline. What he said was it's easy to blame colorism for not getting a role rather than working to improve, get better and eventually get to where Viola is. Granted I'm a Denzel Stan and may be making excuses but I didn't get "colorism does not exist" from his statements.  [SEP] >What he said was it's easy to blame colorism for not getting a role rather than working to improve, get better and eventually get to where Viola is.  Sounds like the same condescending shit White folks (and coons) are always saying to us about racism. You people are always blaming racism for everything, just behave yourself and you'll have no problem succeeding.  You really think the problem with Hollywood is that there just aren't enough talented dark-skinned Black women in it? That they just need to "get better" and then maybe when they're in their late 40's, they'll become successful like Viola?   >Granted I'm a Denzel Stan and may be making excuses but I didn't get "colorism does not exist" from his statements.   I've been a Denzel fan damn near my entire life, since I was a little kid watching St. Elsewhere every week with my mother. But I can't excuse this. 
1. I'm not trying to convert everyone I meet. I'm also not angry. I'm concerned about her in the opposite way that she is concerned about me. It's not anger, in the slightest. Yes, it's difficult, but love demands persistence from me.  Also, I don't want to change her to fit me as much as I want to dispel the notion that faith is important in her life. [SEP] > I don't want to change her to fit me as much as I want to dispel the notion that faith is important in her life.  That is not your job.  If she chooses that path, she chooses it. If not, you can't force it.  >In the way that scepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped. (Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
man if that is what you qualify as someone being a dick to you, you're going to have a hard time going through life. all I said is it is a pretty common color and probably not a reference, which is pretty much just fact.  [SEP] it's also recurring element in the work of a relatively popular author which is also appearing in a tv show that makes pop-culture references.  >which is pretty much just fact.  unless you've personally discussed this with vince gilligan, you're speculating as much as i am, and that's pretty much fact.   >you're going to have a hard time going through life.  what a condescending, prickish thing to say. you are better than me. congratulations.
The debunking videos are great because they are all based on fact. He is really good at breaking things down, and explaining the math behind them. All of those feminist sjw videos he does shed light on what kind of person he is off camera. They are honestly some of the cringiest videos I've ever seen on youtube. [SEP] > All of those feminist sjw videos he does shed light on what kind of person he is off camera.   Yes. The thing is that while it is true that a lot of the claims feminists make are somewhat ridiculous he is really really condescending.   I like the idea of someone taking an objective look at what is basically radical feminism (I do support the idea of equal rights for eveyone, but feminists are sometimes just [taking things too far (not satire)]( http  ).   He just becomes extremely condescending rather than analysing and rational. 
But I can guarantee that rolling over will also be disastrous. What is there to do? Liberals being nice doesn't work. Being mean doesn't work and just 'makes the divide bigger'. It's almost like republicans are being children who demand their way, or scream, and it's only those two choices. How does one deal with this when it's adults doing it? How does someone be reasonable with unreasonable people? We seriously don't seem to have any good, honorable path to take here.  [SEP] DEBATE YOUR POINT! MAKE YOUR CASE! Don't talk down to your opponent!   When you say   >Liberals being nice doesn't work.   I wouldn't know because short of condescending sarcasm, Ive never experienced such a thing.   
> Feast and Dance are my favourite novels of the series due to the worldbuilding and character building involved.  Good lord, you poor thing. Those novels are unfocused, meandering messes. They're fine on a narrative level, as in the individual chapters are passably interesting and competently written. But the plot, and overall story structure, is a complete editing disaster. Especially compared to the first three novels which are tight, concise, and engaging. Martin's lack of editorial direction is starkly (da dum chshh) apparent in Feast for Dancing Dragons. The narrative pays close attention to fairly meaningless events the previous novels would have summarized when a character said "Hey, did you hear about this thing that happened?" either in dialog or internal recollection. There are so many unnecessary POV characters (Hello Arianne Martell, especially, or anyone with the surname Greyjoy other than maybe Victarion), previously important POV characters who don't do anything of consequence (Hello Brienne, wandering in a big circle for 100-something pages asking everyone she meets if they have seen a girl with red-brown hair and never finding her, or Hello Daenerys, living out an Iraq/Afghanistan War allegory, or Hello Sansa, acting as a spoiler for Littlefinger and building snow castles or some shit). He'd have finished those novels ten years ago if a strong editor had said "Stop it, George, those chapters don't add anything to the story.  I honestly think Martin just got overwhelmed by the scope of the project, tired of the slog of producing such a massive quantity of written words (writing one novel is a crucible. Writing seven? On a single topic?) and became more fascinated with the big HBO dolla bills rolling in. He's an old man enjoying his newfound wealth and fame. Those novels are never getting finished. [SEP] > Good lord, you poor thing.  You can have a different opinion without being a condescending ass about it.
Okay, I think you're right. I'm just not articulating myself very well because its early and I'm tired (I know that misandrists and man-haters are synonymous I didn't mean to put both), but I bet if we could have a verbal discussion we'd be in almost total agreement. I was speaking more from personal experiences of trying to explain my beliefs as a feminist which are very moderate, though I have not discussed them in the context of this thread, and still being called a man hater, or a number of other unflattering things when I have presented as nothing but reasonable, and I openly acknowledge that I do not agree with every feminist cause. I take that label mainly because I believe that gender roles in our society are a strict binary that prioritizes masculine over feminine within those definitions, and this causes problems for both genders but a little more so for women simply because part of being feminine is being submissive. Then again my perceptive is both biased and limited, as is everyones. I know that gender roles affect everyone, I only focused on the feminist side because that is what this thread was aimed at discussing but I'd probably have to write a whole book to accurately depict where I stand.  [SEP] You need two "enters" for a new paragraph. Just... FYI.  I think we're mostly in agreement too - it's just these kinds of threads make everyone very highly strung and argumentative. So I apologise if I misrepresented or misinterpreted anything you said.  I think that while you don't need to hide whatever label you identify with, it might just be more productive to just lay out your views, without labels, and let your views do the talking. Labels are supposed to simplify things - e.g. I can say "I'm a vegetarian" instead of explaining "I only eat things which you can obtain without killing an animal". For feminism, I think that benefit has well and truly being lost - you'd spend more time explaining exactly what brand of feminist you are and what aspects of feminism you agree or don't agree with, than you would just laying out your views in regards to gender equality.  >more so for women simply because part of being feminine is being submissive.  This I completely agree with. And even after giving it some thought, I can't think of a solution for it. Femininity shouldn't be a bad word, it shouldn't be a bad concept. Yes, it may have connotations of physical weakness, but it also has connotations of understanding, empathy, grace and a whole host of other positive aspects. Women shouldn't feel pressured to be feminine, but neither should femininity be something to be avoided.   But, you can't both be understanding and conciliatory and still, for example, bargain hard for that raise, or confront others about what annoys you, or interrupt others without a thought, etc. And that puts anyone who's 'feminine' at a disadvantage. And at a society level, the fact that C-level positions and other positions of power are always very competitive and so put feminine individuals at a natural disadvantage compared to masculine ones, and so only reinforces the imbalance in the power structures of society.  ^ Just a note, talking about femininity and masculinity obviously involves generalisations so apologies if I've offended anyone; I am only using the widely accepted definitions of both.   One possible (but not realistic) solution would be for the more masculine individuals to look out for the feminine ones - again using pay negotiations as an example, going easier on negotiations if the other side is more feminine, etc, but that necessarily leads to, if is not already, condescending and basically chauvinism at that point.   shrugs I got nothing really. I want to say "Equal but different" but that sounds uncomfortably close to, both word-wise and principle-wise, to "Separate but equal". And we all know how that turned out.
I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but about the trip... my legs were twitching very hard. When I was laying in the grass, several times a leg would kick up several feet in the air. Is this something that happens on high doses of DXM? It sounded like serotonin syndrome based on what I read. I know the robo-walking happens. I hated not being able to walk properly.  Geez, I can't imagine that anybody would prefer DXM to mushrooms or LSD. I was under the impression people did it when they could get access to nothing else. For me it was mainly curiosity. [SEP] >my legs were twitching very hard  In my experience that is actually rather common on high doses of DXM. Not to say you weren't experiencing serotonin syndrome, it's just that you describe no other typical symptoms and the fact that you are fine now indicates the toxicity wasn't that severe.  >I can't imagine that anybody would prefer DXM to mushrooms or LSD  Personally, I like to mix them. But I wouldn't recommend that for everybody. In fact, tripping that hard still scares the shit out of me and I've done "heroic doses" too many times to remember them all.   I hope I don't sound condescending, but it seems to me you lack the maturity, experience, knowledge, and stability to be doing these kind of drugs at this time in your life. No big deal. You have your whole life ahead of you and there will be plenty of time to experiment with them later when you're ready.
Why are all these Germans complaining about America having no history? If if that were the case, it's better to have no history than to have Germany's recent history. It's like they're setting themselves up for a joke or something.  [SEP] > All these Germans  I don't think your sample size justifies this. This thread is about condescending/prejudiced assumptions, why use it to form more of them?
Then why should OP worry about any speed up from using Microsoft Open R? Lets say the speed increase is an order of magnitude (10X faster).  Does it really matter that his code now runs in 0.1s instead of 1s? Probably not. [SEP] > Then why should OP worry about any speed up from using Microsoft Open R?  OP literally came here asking if it would give increased performance. In other words, OP didn't know and OP was asking, and OP (probably) wasn't expecting some condescending douchenozzle to go off about dedicated instruments.   That aside, I actually managed to say effectively the same thing yesterday in a neutral way. 
No they were not more powerful. I don't know what makes you think that. They were powerful enough to challenge the king of France, especially when said king is mad as hell or has half of his kingdom occupied by the English, but certainly not more powerful.  As for the Burgundy war, it didn't involve the king of France. It was a war between the duke of Burgundy against the Swiss and the duke of lorraine. You shouldn't rely on the English version of Wikipedia on that point. [SEP] > As for the Burgundy war, it didn't involve the king of France. It was a war between the duke of Burgundy against the Swiss and the duke of lorraine. You shouldn't rely on the English version of Wikipedia on that point.  If you're going to be condescending, I'm not going to debate with you. You've provided no more sources than I have.
> please, don't let the childish, dimwitted, idiotic, hippy-boy (actual insults from your comments) redditors get you down.  They never do.  > Your insults and use of large words is evidence that you're attempting to simultaneously insult and intimidate those you disagree with.  Nah, I'm just European... which puts my IQ a few dozen points above most American redditors.  The funny thing is... my posts are upmodded during "the night" (when only Europeans are on Reddit), and modded back down to oblivion once the white trash wakes up.  Anyways... I guess what I am saying is that if you start reading some books, you might one day come to assimilate long words into your vocabulary as well. [SEP] > Nah, I'm just European... which puts my IQ a few dozen points above most American redditors.  In all your cruel and condescending posts I see claims of intelligence with no evidence of intelligence. For example, your odd statement that your IQ is a "few dozen points above" US redditors. :)  IQ scores are distributed on a normal curve whose mean is adjusted every year to 100. When comparing scores, a reference curve is chosen and the means of the other curves are adjusted. Using the UK as a reference (setting the mean to 100), these are the approximate means of other countries: Germany: 102, Italy: 102, Sweden: 101, Poland: 99, Spain: 98, France: 98, US: 98, Canada: 97, Finland: 97, Ireland: 93. (From Wikipedia - IQ and the Wealth of Nations.) So, the difference between the means of the normal IQ distributions of Germany (the highest in Europe) and the US is 4. If you were comparing means of US and European IQ distributions you're off by a wide margin -- however it sounds like you were referring to your own IQ, so let's keep going.   You said that your IQ is a "few dozen" points above US redditors. Let's say that a "few" is "two", meaning that you place your IQ at 24 points above the US mean, which is 20 points above the mean in Germany. Assuming you're from Germany, this places your IQ at about 120. Amusingly, your lack of understanding about IQ distributions probably lead you to estimate your IQ pretty closely. XD  I recommend that instead of browbeating your inferiors with the majesty of your genius, oh great European master of the shining 120, why don't you add "humility" to your vocabulary and see if you can cure that ugly brain of yours.  
Most of your reply was talking about contraceptives but the focus of the original quote was on abortion and allowing women that choice. My point is that you're arguing the wrong point: contraceptives vs. the real focus, which is abortion rights. Hitchens' point about men vs. women is that these laws were passed by men and are still debated by men as to what women should do with their bodies. Women should be at least - at least - 50% of the participants. This may not apply so much in the US but in third world countries where men rule and women are denied abortion. As far as contraceptives, your choice to not be on birth control is fine but it's a question of having it be available vs. not being available. Speaking for this country, it annoys me that Viagra is covered under medical insurance but birth control is not (in many cases).  Hitchens was talking about women being saddled with kids (unwanted pregnancies and rape) which hurts their chances of escaping poverty (rape in particular can make you an outcast). And again, his point was about third world countries where this is the case, Africa in particular. [SEP] > Most of your reply was talking about contraceptives but the focus of >the original quote was on abortion and allowing women that choice.  Christopher Hitchens was defending abortion? That makes no sense. Christopher Hitchens was pro life.  http   He was actually an atheist I respected a lot (and not because of this issue in particular). He knew Christianity really well. I never once heard him misrepresent or fail to articulate Christian doctrine well. He knew what he was rejected and he rejected it. And, overall, I never saw him come off as condescending in any of the debates I've watched him in.   The reason I addressed contraception is because of this:  >Giving them right's over their own reproductive cycle is the >necessary catalyst that allows for the betterment of their own >people.   I answered in regard to contraceptives because the "reproductive cycle" (also called menstrual cycle) refers to the changes that occur in the uterus and ovaries that cycles throughout a woman's life until she reaches menopause. Pregnancy is not a part of this cycle. 
We had a garden growing up and even until my parents just moved last year they still did, because we were a poor family and there was 7 of us kids. We tilled it, planted it, and weeded it ourselves. We were extremely successful.  It's important to learn about what grows best in your area. Something like zucchini gives fruit for the whole summer and is easy to grow. Some plants can be difficult to cultivate or have specific soil requirements and are best not to bother with. Neem oil should be your go to for pest and fungus control, nothing else should be used near plants you intend to consume.  Just because one person had difficulties doesn't mean it's not possible. Just like everything in life it can take a lot of work at first. How do you think people survived 100 - 200 years ago? you think there was a super markets on every corner back then?   [SEP] My point wasn't that I need advice gardening, my point was that not everyone has the means to garden.   >Just because one person had difficulties doesn't mean it's not possible.   I didn't say it was impossible. You're diverting a conversation about surplus value being extracted from labor to give "up by your bootstraps" lectures. I just explained the difficulties of gardening, and how you have lands and means, and your argument boils down to "just have lands and means, and you too, can be free from the 9-5 and surplus extraction." That won't work for everyone. Some are old. Some are disabled. Some live in climate where nothing grows. Some live in the city. Some have dependents and can't just get up and move. The answer to Capitalism isn't more co ops and gardens, though those are great for the people who have the means to start them.  I have a garden. I live with a garden. I am lucky. I am privileged. I still don't have enough space to feed myself entirely, though, and it is a full time job, on top of the one I use to get the income to buy the gardening supplies. You think I'm not aware that I could just always work harder? No fucking shit.   >How do you think people survived 100 - 200 years ago? you think there was a super markets on every corner back then?  Don't be condescending. How ignorant do you want to assume I am? I am aware that technology advances and the universe wasn't born with supermarkets already sitting there. Your paternalistic tone implies time and time again that I don't know something as you repeat what I have known for years.  Obviously there wasn't a supermarket on every corner. THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT. People could die from starvation from one bad growing season. In many parts of the world, they still do. Supermarkets, while we're on the subject, rely on massive oppression of farmers, among other atrocities. 
They got a deluge of death threats when they delayed earlier this year, who knows what would've happened if they delayed again.   I'm not saying don't criticize them, I'm saying that suing them for publishing a game before every feature was ready isn't enough reason to sue them when you can get a refund in most cases.   I used the word exaggerating when talking about the alien factions, they "lied" about multiplayer working because they didn't want the game to crash more than I already does. Again, this will likely eventually get patched in or they will face some legal retribution  Don't speak to me like I'm a child, I know exactly what those words mean and when to use them.   Edit: Battlefield 4 promised you could destroy any building and a bunch of other features that still aren't in the game. It came out two years ago and I'm on readit so I don't want to take the time to look their promises and what wasn't in the game up.  [SEP] > I'm not saying don't criticize them, I'm saying that suing them for publishing a game before every feature was ready isn't enough reason to sue them when you can get a refund in most cases.  They sold a product under false pretenses. Seems like a reasonable reason to sue. Less so if refunds are freely given.  > Don't speak to me like I'm a child, I know exactly what those words mean and when to use them.  I do not mean to condescend you.
I have had the tendency to do this sometimes to my old roomy who is a huge sports fan. But to be fair the amount of times I've had to sit there while our hangouts turn into a 3 hour discussion about a sport I don't give a fuck about is ridiculous. If I go to my room and fire up a game or just ignore the conversation and browse reddit or something, I'm an unsocial dick. I'm not, I just get extremely annoyed listening to sports banter, it just sounds like the exact same things every time. It reminds me of looking at the covers of celebrity magazines in the checkout line. Same titles and headlines, interchangeable people involved. X cheated on Y, X& Y's 500M divorce, forever and ever. When people talk about sports around me for more than a few minutes I feel like I'm being water boarded by irrelevancy  [SEP] > the amount of times I've had to sit there while our hangouts turn into a 3 hour discussion about a sport I don't give a fuck about is ridiculous  See, at that point, your roommate was being a dick first; demean that shit all you want and you won't hear a peep out of me. Person you never met or just the general public? Don't need to act condescending about it.
Personally, I don't enjoy Assault at all, so I'm glad I don't have to play it. But, it's bullshit that game modes are removed from matchmaking FOR EVERYONE just because the MLG pro dewrito lords don't like playing it. [SEP] > MLG pro dewrito lords  You don't need to add that condescending shit. You can make your point without belittling other people's preferred playstyles.
>I love it this, now I gotta be ashamed of how I make money because I don't do it in a way that satisfies your moral code? Because I don't create "value"  Yes, you should feel bad. You're a bad person, since you're not creating wealth in a mutually beneficial way, you're just advocating extraction of wealth done via government, that benefits you at the expense of everyone else. You're no different than the telecoms that lobby and pay for competition to be kept out via laws, or defense co tractors lobbying for continued wars.  >Let me worry about generating "value" towards society. You just stay in your lane and worry about yourself.  Stay in my lane? You're acting like you're king shit because you own real estate in Toronto, but don't realize the wealth you've gained is the type that takes zero skill, intelligence, or foresight of any kind. Its the same reason you're still trying to break in to your industry - you have none of those things.   My lane is literally building houses, anything from waterfront to affordable housing. And although housing isn't a costly issue for me, it is for a ton of people out there and it's not getting any easier because people like you care more about your paper gains growing while you sit comfortable, explicitly at their expense. There's a reason why lots of places ban foreign ownership - the locals have no choice to compete against nearly unlimited cash chasing scarce necessity.   > dunno if your a libertarian or a conservative but you use language similar to them.  Is that supposed to be an insult? I've read enough economics to know what makes a country a good and a bad one. Whether institutions are included or extractive is abig one. The extractive ones are generally only good for a select few at the extreme expense of everyone else... Guess which one you promote?   >The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind  HAHAHAHAHAHAH AH HA HA HA.   You seriously just used a quote from a movie about trading in the stock market, a place where it's live or die by your skills, intelligence and ability. The trading world is the wild West compared to the housing market. It isn't a place where Gordon Gekko calls up the government and asks them to make everyone buy Apple stock immeadiately after he's already bought a million shares.   Holy shit. Get over yourself. If I met you in person I would have no problem telling you about what a bad person you are. [SEP] >Stay in my lane? You're acting like you're king shit because you own real estate in Toronto, but don't realize the wealth you've gained is the type that takes zero skill, intelligence, or foresight of any kind.  Now that we're in a bubble, it's easy money but I was doing this in 2008 after the housing market bubble burst. Did you read my anecdote about how I got started in Montreal? St. Henri was once one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada. I think in 2011 the median income there was like $19,000 or something ridiculously low. NOBODY wanted to live in St. Henri in 2008. I saw an opportunity to buy something and I sold it at a profit. That is an example of risk taking and foresight. Maybe it doesn't fit within your moral code on how to make money but we're gonna have to agree to disagree there.  >Stay in my lane? You're acting like you're king shit because you own real estate in Toronto,   Actually no I don't own anything in Toronto except for my own residence. My income generating properties are in the cheaper areas of the of Southern Ontario. Toronto is too expensive. But you wouldn't know that because I don't whine about not being able to afford a 10 acre property with an infinity pool and a 5 door garage on Yonge and Dundas like some of these entitled fools in this thread.   >There's a reason why lots of places ban foreign ownership - the locals have no choice to compete against nearly unlimited cash chasing scarce necessity.  I dunno why you keep bringing this up with regards to Toronto. The effect that foreign ownership has in Toronto is way overstated IMO. I have a feeling you've read enough articles on this to convince yourself otherwise but lets agree to disagree here. My stance on Toronto is in my OP - people move to Toronto because they want to live here. Your stance is probably the mass immigration conspiracy theory based on my reading of your previous comments and your weird fixation on foreigners.   >I've read enough economics to know what makes a country a good and a bad one.  lol. Speaking of condescending - this is a sentence made for r/IAmVerySmart. The quip about you being a libertarian/conservative is not an insult, it's just an observation that you're not consistent with your morals - assuming you're one to begin with.  I've been so humble throughout this entire exchange and now you have decided that it's cool to insult my intelligence. You sir, are an example of why r/Canada has become such a toxic place. For someone who is so successful, your mindset is impoverished like the plebs you're defending.  
Look I appreciate a good discussion, but there is no need to get personal and insulting. I didn't insult you and I appreciate the same courtesy. Many of us use phones to post on reddit so there is an understanding that grammatical mistakes happen, asking where I went to school is just plain rude.  Now to answer your question, alert's for debugging is anti pattern. I'm not saying don't use print statements, sure by all means, but an alert is not a print statement. It actually changes the behavior of your code since alerts are blocking. console.log on the other hand is non-blocking and a better way to debug (if you want quick and dirty). As a software architect, I've seen alerts cause way more problems in the long run.   With that said, quick & dirty often leads to bad habits. I've been in the industry a long time, I've worked on some very large code bases for some of the larger sites on the internet. As a result I've interacted with many developers who have internalized these bad habits early on and still continue to do them in their professional career. So yes, my comment was constructive in that I was providing advice that alerts cause problems (cause they blocking) and that a better alternative is to use the debugger found in most modern browsers.   Here's some advice from someone in the industry (working for a large tech company in california) and who speaks at a lot of conferences and meetups. We're allowed to have different opinions and even disagree , but attacking someone for no reason is a horrible attitude and on that will limit your ability to get jobs and grow in the industry. I wish you all the best.  [SEP] I'd like to preface this reply with a few things -  - I too replied to OP on mobile - I'd had a bad day - so as potentially spoiling for a fight lol  > I didn't insult you and I appreciate the same courtesy  Your post was rude and arrogant (from my view) - and this is furthered by your second reply  > Now to answer your question  I didn't ask a question - I agreed with you  > alerts are blocking  Doi! that was the point, the OP called for a solution that would interrupt the script execution - just like using a breakpoint  Purist arguments aside - surely you can see that this scenario was perfectly suited to using an alert - especially seeing as OP wrote this as a "learning exercise"  > With that said, quick & dirty often leads to bad habits  at any point in this thread have you responded to OP with a tutorial on setting breakpoints and using the debugger in whichever browser they use? Or responded to the OP with another suggestion?  You did not, instead - you replied directly to my comment with what was perceived at the time as - to be frank - an arsey (Scottish word, roughly meaning rude) comment, indeed your further response is incredibly condescending and it just proves the point that I think that you've missed something important...  Quite often in communications one has to moderate how and what they say depending on the objective of the conversation and the level of the other participant.  The fact that you haven't tried to contribute to the discussion, instead just went "your idea is rubbish, OP should do something more complex" when OP is clearly very early in their career, if at all - indeed likely more of a hobby developer shows that regardless of who you are or what you do - you don't seem to have a good understanding of teaching/mentoring.  ...So please teach OP to use the debugger remotely over the internet and scare them off.     
> You still have the option, and Thor is a bad example. Nemesis can build any boots and be okay, depending on her role.  Many of the defenses I've seen thus far seem to take casuals into account waaay too much. You're hardly, if ever, gonna find nemesis outside of jungle. Therefore, the limits to her build is confined to warrior's, ninja's. and maybe talaria's but you'll pretty much miss out on a lot of power if you go talaria's. Despite those options, warrior's is always better early. You only go ninja's on nem if you're building aa. Warrior's is the primary choice then.  > That's the point of the post; Rat is now locked into his sustain acorn, and doesn't have a single other acorn to change his playstyle. The post is asking for one more to at least create some diversity with the character as it was originally intended.  It's literally only one item, you have five other item slots to dick around with if you like. AA builds don't exclusively need aa boots; tank boots don't exclusively need tank boots. His diversity is not gone because they limited his passive. And seeing as how one acorn was viable before pretty much shows that multiple acorns didn't even do its intended purpose.  > They can still be played without fatalis, believe it or not.  Yeah they're just gonna suck complete balls.   > An item being good on a god and an item being locked on a god are two different things.  And seeing as how you can still build aa rat or whatever the hell a pleb wants to build (along with their med neith) with the current acorn shows that having that one acorn makes no difference. [SEP] >Many of the defenses I've seen thus far seem to take casuals into account waaay too much. You're hardly, if ever, gonna find nemesis outside of jungle. Therefore, the limits to her build is confined to warrior's, ninja's. and maybe talaria's but you'll pretty much miss out on a lot of power if you go talaria's. Despite those options, warrior's is always better early. You only go ninja's on nem if you're building aa. Warrior's is the primary choice then.  So you're saying 3 boots work on her. I didn't need an explanation of what boots do. Nemesis can be played solo in ranked if you play properly.  >It's literally only one item, you have five other item slots to dick around with if you like. AA builds don't exclusively need aa boots; tank boots don't exclusively need tank boots. His diversity is not gone because they limited his passive. And seeing as how one acorn was viable before pretty much shows that multiple acorns didn't even do its intended purpose.  That's not even close to the point. You're just stating the obvious. Ratatoskr's previous acorns gave him things that were unique to him, and allowed for playstyles surrounding those items. There were different playstyles for him depending on the acorn, but now he only has one acorn playstyle. The acorns directly changed his abilities personally; they were designed for him. That's what the original purpose of the acorns were and the unique thing to Ratatoskr was. If you're wondering why they altered his abilities, here's the Opal, Sapphire, Emerald, and Topaz acorns which were interesting.  >Yeah they're just gonna suck complete balls.  Is that your experience with them?  >And seeing as how you can still build aa rat or whatever the hell a pleb wants to build (along with their med neith) with the current acorn shows that having that one acorn makes no difference.  Pleb? You sound pretty condescending. What is even your point here? That different builds are possible, maybe you're blaming new players or something?  It sounds more like you're sworn to the meta if anything. The meta isn't the game you know 
Oh I bet you enjoy it, but you kind of dont admit, that you overpay for what you enjoy.  Somehow, this view is popular mostly about HS fans and fans of audiophile equipment. Fans of other stuff e.g. car modding at least admit that they pay a lot for their stuff (and as far as I know car modders dont overpay - they pay a lot, but not overpay). It's seriously fascinating: you are kind of happy with the fact that you overpay. This makes you happy and content - you even defend this when someone points out to you that this behavior is not logical.  I dont know how to call it apart from just thinking that you enjoy being fucked by Blizzard. There is a group of goods where people overpay - but they overpay for a reason: mostly to show off that they can afford them, things like a fancy car, or designer clothes (  http  ). But you cant really show off to anyone that you have spent 2000 dollars on a children's card game, because most people (even the the hardcore nerds) will think that you are an idiot.  I guess you enjoy overpaying for the sake of overpaying, even without being able to show this off to anyone. Maybe it's some psychological thing as well. I can only congratulate Blizzard for finding such a brainwashed niche and being able to build a revenue of 500M dollars per year on people like you. After all - you even defend them!  (I also kind of admire their skills, but at the end of the day I believe that what they do is a simply a predatory practice; or is it? After all you enjoy it. I bet the people in sects, or MLM companies also enjoy what they do... for some time). [SEP] > that you overpay for what you enjoy.  That's an opinion I highly disagree with, Hearthstone is by far the cheapest card game I've ever played. Go into another fit about how it's not actually a card game all you want, but it scratches the card game itch and I play it in place of other card games like MTG where I would spend ten times as much to play. As a CCG, the value comes from using the cards over and over again. I've spent nearly $200... but I have thousands of games played, and when looking at the math I've spent under a penny per game. I wouldn't call that overpaying, especially because I enjoy unpacking cards just as much as I enjoy playing the game.  >you are kind of happy with the fact that you overpay.  You're really just not taking the time to actually listen to outside opinions in any way. As I've said, I wouldn't call under a penny per game overpaying. I AM happy with the fact that I can support the game in a way that benefits me and also ensures other people can play for free and keep the servers alive longer, all of which are net benefits. ]  >you even defend this when someone points out to you that this behavior is not logical.  You've yet to do that. You can keep saying "It's not a real card game!!" over and over again, but that's an opinion and it's absolutely not applicable to me.  >But you cant really show off to anyone that you have spent 2000 dollars on a children's card game  First of all it's not just about showing off, some people can take pride in using money to help others. That's the entire concept of donations. I have to laugh when you have to shove "children's" in there as if the game wasn't clearly made with adults in mind. Spending money on Hearthstone is similar to spending money on Reddit Gold for someone else, you can do it to help keep the servers up by doing your part. Or do you think anyone donating money through reddit is an idiot that enjoys being "fucked by reddit" in your terms?  I laugh every time you reply with some insane condescending shit about psychology and backhanded little comments about how envious you are of Blizzard for this, you have some problems deeper than you think if you take a so-called "children's card game" and twist it to such an evil thing.
It's not a bad idea. However the subreddit doesn't support any given mod and Google has proven easy enough to use for the last few years.    [SEP] >Google has proven easy enough to use for the last few years.  This is such a condescending thing to say. You should sticky mods for convenience, nobody wants things stickied because they're too stupid to find it on thier own. Also, nobody cares about what mods this subreddit supports. I fail to see how that could be relevant.  
Point 1. I was not offering anything to the conversation except replying to people thoughts.  Point 2. Another grand generalization on your part. Sometimes, somethings so absurd and completely stupid as religion deserves to be mocked, if only to highlight it's absurdity.  Point 3. If you feel my title did suggest any point of view, then if you had read my post, you would see that I twice said I did not have an opinion on the matter. A point you have consistently overlooked.  Point 4. I am not going to change my title, simply because I do not need to change it. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong, I don't see it as a bad thing to admit you're wrong.  Point 5. I have not insulted you, whereas your comments are filled with wild generalizations, sweeping stereotyped and attempts by you to insult my education and overall intelligence.   Conclusion: If you read my five points here, maybe you could reply to me with your response suitably formatted and also free from petty remarks.  [SEP] >somethings so absurd and completely stupid as religion deserves to be mocked, if only to highlight it's absurdity.  and you wonder why this  >Your thoughts on religion and whether it should be linked to lack of intelligence.  was telling your view.  >If you read my five points here, maybe you could reply to me with your response suitably formatted and also free from petty remarks.   Sure. When your responses aren't so condescending. 
ANCEDOTES BELOW  I'm American and I live in the UK. I much prefer the US and will thankfully be moving back soon. For myself, I think it's a combination of the weather, culture, and honestly an outdoors thing. Culturally, people feel very outwardly cold here. They're incredibly friendly when you get to know them, but there just aren't as many smiles from strangers and small talk with people in a queue.   The weather is obvious but the outdoors/population thing is a big one for me. Unless you have the luxury of owing a car (which are incredibly expensive to own/run/maintain here), you're completely at the mercy of wherever the public transit goes, which is almost always other cities. I long to just hop in my car and drive to where there aren't people like I could back home but I can't do that here. It's incredibly populated and it's time consuming to even get away. I understand that there are millions of people that live cities and European cities are much easier to get around and much nicer to look at IMO.   It's very nice to have stuff like the NHS and public transit and mandated leave, but I'd trade it all to live in the US.   These thoughts are 100% ancedotal, please don't hate me [SEP] > Culturally, people feel very outwardly cold here. They're incredibly friendly when you get to know them, but there just aren't as many smiles from strangers and small talk with people in a queue.  I agree with this sentiment. I hate the coldness and impersonal nature of many Germans. The thing I hate most is the oberlehrerhaft (a bit like man-splaining). It just drives me nuts. Unfortunately, I probably have some of this trait as well. 
>I repeatedly asked specifically which point I referenced you thought was false. And like a person who doesn't have evidence or is unable to back up his own points, you said, "all of it"  I keep saying "all of it" because you have never said anything that wasn't propagandized. If you want to give me evidence, I'm not stopping you. The fact that you haven't, is because there isn't any.   > The goal isn't always to defund but often times to reduce.   then why are they only trying to reduce things that obama has passed?   >>"Wouldn't they focus on the major causes of increased debt"  >Obama care is indeed one of them  that's weird, it is "one of" the things that has caused an increase in debt, but it is the ONLY THING the "fiscal conservatives" are trying to defund. . . . . strange.   >Military is expensive but worth spending money on.  This is where the "fiscal conservative" argument shows itself for what it is. "we can't stop giving money to the corporations that put on war (and also pay us), but there is not enough money to make sure our own citizens are healthy, not starving to death, or freezing death"  This is hands down the craziest part of your argument. "military is worth it, but healthcare isn't".  >>"corporate tax loop holes"    >This is not an expense.  yes. it is. The fact that you don't understand that tax breaks are government expenditures is proof that you have absolutely no idea how government works. You just listen to whatever tea party evangelist you subscribe to and assume that everything else is a lie. Any time a corporation owes money, and the "fiscal conservatives" say "no, you don't need to pay that money", then the rest of the tax payers have to pay for it.    DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. STOP LISTENING TO THE TALKING HEADS THAT TELL YOU THAT CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE.   This is something you're going to have to do for yourself. I can show you the door, but you have to walk through it.   Start questioning the things you're told, figure out why they're saying it, if it's true, and if it will stay true in the future.   think for yourself.  [SEP] >"I keep saying "all of it" because you have never said anything that wasn't propagandized. If you want to give me evidence, I'm not stopping you. The fact that you haven't, is because there isn't any."  Propaganda by definition implies that it is false. Because none of it is, I need to know specifics as to what you believe is false. I can't find sources and justification for every single letter of the alphabet I uttered thus far in an effort to be thorough.   >"then why are they only trying to reduce things that obama has passed?"  Obviously that isn't true. There are tons of laws that pass to which they don't take any issue with whatsoever.   >"that's weird, it is "one of" the things that has caused an increase in debt, but it is the ONLY THING the "fiscal conservatives" are trying to defund. . . . . strange."  They work towards reducing spending, and omitting some others as well as not increasing debt. Some laws like Obamacare are so incredibly bad for the country, for the private sector, as well as for citizens that any and every effort for its removal including defunding is necessary.   >"This is where the "fiscal conservative" argument shows itself for what it is. "we can't stop giving money to the corporations that put on war (and also pay us), but there is not enough money to make sure our own citizens are healthy, not starving to death, or freezing death""  Why is safety somehow not important. We can have both. Financial prosperity within a country is achieved when we make an economic environment that's friendly to business. This creates jobs. Jobs create employment. Employment creates salaries. Salaries create spending... on healthy living, food as well as shelter. When a country just hands these services out, it takes from the haves and gives to the have-nots. This results in less incentive to work for these things while at the same time taking money from individuals and companies that might otherwise might spend it thereby growing business.   >"This is hands down the craziest part of your argument. "military is worth it, but healthcare isn't"."  Safety within our country is definitely worth it. Health care is something we already had... the United States has the best health care in the world. What you're advocating is not free health care. (There's no such thing)   >"yes. it is."  No. It's not. Make no mistake, tax holes should obviously be closed but keeping them open is not an expense. Simply put, money is not going out... its instead not coming in.   >"Any time a corporation owes money, and the "fiscal conservatives" say "no, you don't need to pay that money", then the rest of the tax payers have to pay for it."  This is an example where you show your colors. This is not something associated with conservatives... or at least accurately associated with conservatives. This is an issue that crosses party lines. Each party likes to point it out when the other party is in power however when a political party is in power, they give loop holes to their special interest groups. It's wrong when either party does it. You think this is an issue exclusive to republicans or "fiscal conservatives" because most news outlets have a liberal bent to them causing their bias to show in their reporting.   >"Start questioning the things you're told, figure out why they're saying it, if it's true, and if it will stay true in the future. think for yourself."  I would ask you to do the same. I haven't gone down these roads of telling you how ignorant you are... or at least not to the same degree you have not because I don't think you need to be corrected but because the tone is very condescending. My goal is to enlighten you. I'm afraid that my primary error in judgement thus far is in hoping that this tone would show me to be the more reasonable among the both of us however it would appear that you have mischaracterized it as not having a point to express. I'd ask that you stop the condescending tone unless you want it returned.
Then you can’t find the ft% anchors or the threes you need. Low tier pg’s usually gain value from assists. You’ll end up punting those two cats as well. Punting isn’t just sorting bbm by each punt category and trading up.  [SEP] >Punting isn't just sorting bbm by each punt category and trading up  Lol I understand that but thanks for the condescending put down. There are plenty of ft% and three point anchors that you can find that are SG-PF.   >Low tier pg's usually gain value from assists  There are lower tier PG eligible players that drive value from other places too...Pat Beverly, Brogdon, Lou Will, Crabbe, and Avery Bradley (Seth Curry and Lavine when they're back)
I feel ya. Again at work so my books are out of reach. I'm an older person and not super adroit at online interneting. I'll save this thread and jump back when I remember/find something/etc.   To address the second half of your post:  If you're gonna be a NWO apologist, we're never gonna agree on Pike's legacy.   People are the institutions they voluntarily belong to.  Spez: If somebody is chatting with you in some detail on Pike's legacy, you can prolly skip language like "I think you'll find..." I've prolly "found" more than, for example, you... especially if you think the 33rd degree is a thing one pays for. [SEP] >you're gonna be a NWO apologist, we're never gonna agree on Pike's legacy.  Not a NWO apologist, but I often find that people will rally in opposition to anything and dehumanize one another because having an enemy to hate completes some people (you called albert pike a monster, remember?). I am not being apologetic in trying to understand human beings as human beings and not as objects to project my hatred onto. If I'm going to criticize albert pike, the NWO or anyone else for that matter, I'm going to do so on specific aspects of their character-actions they've taken, words they've said-not on the whole of their being. It's easy to take one person or one part of a system and lump it altogether as "bad" or "good" and it is also very inaccurate. It robs things of their complexity and their value and replaces them with something far lesser for the sake of serving ourselves.  >People are the institutions they voluntarily belong to.  Not necessarily. If you're a Catholic priest you're not inherently responsible for the pedophilia and homicide carried out by clergy-unless that is, you raped and killed children. Claiming Albert Pike is responsible for the actions of a cabalistic order attempting to create a new world order without proof that Albert Pike was directly involved in furthering that agenda is unfounded. I await your evidence.  > I've prolly "found" more than, for example, you  That's incredibly condescending and a judgment I never passed on you in saying, "I think you'll find". I'm just lending my perspective-that's all.  
All of your points are valid, fair enough. But all of them miss the point that college is a choice. I know people that have gone and are better for it and some worse. I know people that have not gone and are doing great, there's a flipside to that too.  College or the institutions themselves aren't a problem (quality education is provided in exchange for $), so US govt regulation should not be an issue. Financing college education via govt loans is already capped, what a student chooses to do with private lenders is up to them and the risk each party is willing to take.   It sounds like the issue you're voicing has to do with the high cost of college and the uncertainty of a job market upon graduation. Welcome to the real world, there are no guarantees and globalization has opened a floodgate of talent. Youths in Kentucky are going up against the sons and daughters of factory owners in Mumbai, both smart, talented and desiring to go to prestigious universities. There is no simple solution, and the ones you propose are myopic.  [SEP] >But all of them miss the point that college is a choice  So is owning a home and buying a car. If there were something fundamentally wrong or unjust about the consequences of making such a choice (one that is fairly common in American life), wouldn't, at the least, discussion regarding how to fix it be appropriate?  >College or the institutions themselves aren't a problem (quality education is provided in exchange for $)  We attempt to control inflation in other sectors of the economy, yet over the past 35 years, college tuition is up 1,100% (versus 200% CPI)  >US govt regulation should not be an issue  I think you may have mistaken my interest/conclusion for a regulation request. My recommendations were primarily located in educating the public, not forcing schools to close or lower their prices.   >Welcome to the real world  There's really no need to be condescending in a forum, especially one where I state my opinion and ask for yours
Indigenous tribes aren't allowed to be independent? Then that is not full self-determination, I'll give you that much. I fully support their self-determination since that is something all people should have. As far as I'm aware though, there are no major movements among their nations for full independence. Assuming there was though, I would support it if the super-majority vote yes.  > your definition merely means having the right and perhaps the opportunity of self-determination, rather than actually exercising it.  The key point here is determination. If the people determine that they prefer to be part of a greater nation, then their self-determination was observed, not trampled upon. From the looks of it, what I consider self-determination, you simply consider to be the right to self-determination and not self-determination itself. It seems like we're mostly on the same page when it comes to self-determination, we just use slightly different terminology. Both of us agree that self-determination is the people controlling their state.  > is there a citizen of those countries who isn't part of the nation?  For me, that wold be people who got citizenship only for the benefits but do not consider themselves a part of the state and have not integrated into the society (my dad has Canadian citizenship but he is neither integrated into Canadian society nor does he identify as a Canadian, for him it is just a passport). In casual conversations though, and even in many legal contexts, nationality and citizenship are synonymous (though I do not personally consider them to be exactly the same, they just overlap for the most part). In fact, all Western nations basically use nationality as a synonym for citizenship. It is largely, as you said, Eastern European ethnic nation states that call ethnic minorities nationalities (Hungary is one example). Not surprisingly, Zionism originated in this part of Europe.  > If not, how is the "nation" in the "Canadian or American nation-state" meaningful in any way?  Direct quote from my textbook, which is more more less how I see nations:  > A nation is a community that controls or seeks to control it's own state.  Nations and states are inherently linked. The people of Canada and the people of the United States control a state, and the vast majority of the population supports and is loyal to this state, thus, we are nations. When it comes to Quebec, things get a bit murky since a significant portion of the population (but not everyone) wishes to control their own state. In the parliament, a motion passed that stated, "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." The PM said he meant nationhood in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense. Chong, someone (of immigrant background) who opposed the motion, said "I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided, called Canada, based on civic and not ethnic nationalism." Note: though there is some debate on whether Quebec is a nation embedded within the Canadian nation, basically everyone recognizes that Canadians are a nation and Canada is a nation-state. The parliament of Quebec currently has the title "National Assembly."  In the US, a similar concept exists for Indigenous people who are given the title "domestic dependent nations."  Another excerpt from my book I wanna highlight:  > nations are in many ways like ethnic groups, except for the crucial difference that nations seek their own state while ethnicities are content to live under the existing state  This isn't exactly what I consider to be an ethnicity, but it does highlight that most Westerners, including myself, do not see ethnicities and nationalities as synonyms (whereas some other cultures do). For example, I consider myself Hispanic by ethnicity, but not as a nationality since no Hispanics see themselves as a nation. Instead, we view ourselves as a group of people who inhabit many nations who share a common language and some shared culture & traditions.  > If so, are the US and Canada officially built for that nation, but not for American and Canadian citizens of other nations, even on a purely symbolic level?  This is a particularly Zionist POV, since the Zionists view Israel as a nation-state built for Jews all over the world, not just those who live in Israel, much less visited it. Legally, Canadian and American citizenship is inherited in case that's what you're asking. Immigration is a major part of our nations' histories, and even our national identity, but it is commonly perceived that they become Americans and Canadians after they live here for most of their lives, not before they come here.  > And finally, as I pointed out, your definitions are not just unusual in general, but completely irrelevant to this particular conflict, where both sides have a more traditional definition.  If we go by the Zionist and Palestinian concepts of self-determination, the conflict will never end, so we can't really go by that. [SEP] > Both of us agree that self-determination is the people controlling their state.  No... it's a specific people, or nation, controlling their own state. If you have three nations in a single state, all with full democratic elections, those three nations would not have self-determination.  > In casual conversations though, and even in many legal contexts, nationality and citizenship are synonymous (though I do not personally consider them to be exactly the same, they just overlap for the most part). In fact, all Western nations basically use nationality as a synonym for citizenship.  So, first of all, again: what meaning does the word "nation-state" have by your definition, that "state" alone doesn't? Because I don't see how it's anything but a tautological definition: a state for a single nation, which consists of any citizens of that state. Is it merely a "state that is for its loyal citizens", or for "citizens who want to be citizens for non-financial reasons"? Doesn't seem to a be a particularily useful or meaningful definition. At most, I'd say, it's a subversion of the term "nation" for a deeply post-national ideology.   And second, you seem to think the West consists of North America. In fact, European nations absolutely do have concepts like the "German people" and the "Greek people" that are vastly different than merely having German or Greek citizenship. They are separate ethnic groups, with histories that start well before the existence of those modern states, and lasted through being part of other states (such as the Ottoman Empire) for centuries. Those states don't just promote the culture and history of said peoples, but have citizenship based on Jus Sanguinis, and even Laws of Return, equivalent to the Israeli one.   Now, there are all kinds of caveats here: the French ideologically refuse to believe in a "French ethnicity", the monarchies are technically defined as "the subjects of King X", rather than the "state of the Y people", and even within the more traditional nation-states, nationalism is eroding and constantly debated. But with all of that said, it's still a far cry from the whole West being composed of "nations of all of their citizens".   > It is largely, as you said, Eastern European ethnic nation states that call ethnic minorities nationalities (Hungary is one example). Not surprisingly, Zionism originated in this part of Europe.  Zionism originated in Austria, with its first congress being in Basel, Switzerland. It's mostly influenced by German nationalism, and Herzl was indeed a part of a German nationalist group. He was born in Hungary, but that's about it.   > This is a particularly Zionist POV, since the Zionists view Israel as a nation-state built for Jews all over the world, not just those who live in Israel, much less visited it.   This is not a particularily Zionist POV. As I pointed out, Germany and Greece, along with most of East Europe and many other countries have immigration laws akin to the Israeli ones, who favor ethnic members of their nation. They all promote their peoples' culture, history and values, and have an ethnic diaspora, who still feels a connection to that country, even centuries after they left.   Incidentally, neither those nor Israeli immigration laws actually give an automatic citizenship to these ethnic members. Merely a faster path to citizenship.  > If we go by the Zionist and Palestinian concepts of self-determination, the conflict will never end, so we can't really go by that.  What a deeply condescending and useless thing to believe. No, your inability to understand the basic ideology of a conflict on the other side of the world, doesn't mean you have some deeper insight than the people who actually live it.  I'd also point out that the American and Canadian solution to a similar problem, was not some peaceful, inclusive dialogue with fair power-sharing between all the interested parties. It was to massacre, disenfranchise, ethically cleanse, and otherwise brutally beat down the nations that fought them for control over that land, for the benefit of the white colonists. Their official multicultural ideology only served one thing: to legitimize the non-ethnic invaders' rule. So no, I wouldn't like either the Israelis nor the Palestinians to adopt that approach.
He's not using diminished as meaning flatted. A diminished triad is called that because of its diminished fifth. A fully diminished seventh chord has also a diminished seventh, while a half diminished chord has a minor seventh, so compared to a fully diminished one it has half the diminished intervals. He's not going by the quality of the third, which in diminished triads is always minor. These are all conventional names for intervals, and you should probably learn them :)  [SEP] >He's not using diminished as meaning flatted  Which is why I gave several definitions, not just the one  >A diminished triad is called that because of its diminished fifth  Right, but the term is arbitrary as I have already pointed out  >A fully diminished seventh chord has also a diminished seventh, while a half diminished chord has a minor seventh, so compared to a fully diminished one it has half the diminished intervals. He's not going by the quality of the third, which in diminished triads is always minor  I covered all of this if you bothered reading what I actually said  >These are all conventional names for intervals, and you should probably learn them :)  I know them, you condescending prick, I am actually a music teacher, so I know them VERY well, which is why I am telling you the names are arbitrary and inconsistent. And it is obviously so. Saying it is convention is just an appeal to tradition fallacy. 
Hey - go and actually read Psychological Types and Jungs work post-Psychological Types that's relevant here, and before that - reread my post because you didn't catch what I was talking about with regards to organize.  Before accusing people of lying or attempt to insult them, it might be wise to actually understand their position lest you look, well - as you do right now.  Nobody is saying Si or Ni literally organizes things.  It is a subjective disposition towards sensory information that piques the interest of the person.   This acts as an organization towards that information. This is due to introversion.   It is on account of the person placing a higher value on themselves and their own sensory perception as opposed to objective reality - and so, Si is distinct from Se as Si is oriented towards sensory information that piques the persons interest and excludes most else - and Se is oriented towards taking in as much objective sensory data as it can.    Now, before wasting my time and that of our fellow readers with a response such as you've just provided which is nothing but a Feeling response with absolutely no reasoning or data behind it - make sure you understand this time.    [SEP] >Hey - go and actually read Psychological Types and Jungs work post-Psychological Types that's relevant here  I have, you condescending douche, and I already pointed that out the first time you said it. Do you have reading difficulties?  >Before accusing people of lying or attempt to insult them, it might be wise to actually understand their position lest you look, well - as you do right now.  I look like someone calling you out for either lying or being ignorant, which you obviously are. I don't listen to flat earthers either - there is such a thing as too willingly ignorant to argue with.  >Nobody is saying Si or Ni literally organizes things. It is a subjective disposition towards sensory information that piques the interest of the person. This acts as an organization towards that information. This is due to introversion.  So what you're telling me is that you don't understand the meaning of the word organise?  The Jungian term is 'subjective.' Meaning, introverted functions create a general subject of what they observe based on personal impressions and comparisons and they ignore the objective factor. That's Jung 101. It's not even close to organisation.  >Now, before wasting my time and that of our fellow readers with a response such as you've just provided which is nothing but a Feeling response with absolutely no reasoning or data behind it - make sure you understand this time.  You don't provide any data, but you call me out for not doing it either? LOL.  I'm insulting you because you are condescending. It's a natural response.
1st: Why would he be talking about countries and their economies when that wasn't even part of the conversation?  2nd: the comment above mine was a joke from an /r/askreddit thread [SEP] >1st: Why would he be talking about countries and their economies when that wasn't even part of the conversation?  Because you added it to the conversation when you made your condescending remarks.   You derailed the conversation, not him. 
Capitalism is not totalitarian. True capitalism does not have rules, institutions or governance the only governance is money which comes from the financial vote of the people. There does not need to be any type of control structure for capitalism to work. However there must be a control structure for socialist or communist economical systems to work. This is why they are not truly anarchist. When you loop in political and economic systems together you lose all sense of anarchy in the first place. You speak of capitalism in a political sense which is not what I am speaking of. Socialism spreads the wealth how? What if I don’t want to pay for other people? How is it fair for me to be forced to pay for others shortcomings if I do not want to? What if I want to be an individual? IMO taxation is theft and spreading the wealth is a tax. [SEP] True capitalism is irrelevant. The deck is already stacked. Capitalism is the everyday reality, and you're probably not going to somehow convince me that the wealthy elites are going to relinquish their positions just so that the scramble to amass the biggest advantage can begin again. That's a fool's game.  The ideals of the free market depend on a mythical world where competition stays fair.   Under capitalism, capital is privately owned, but how? If you decide that you've had enough of your boss stealing your surplus value and tell him that the workplace now belongs to those who work it, he'll call the police and they'll fucking murder you. Nobody would keep putting up with capitalism if it wasn't for that threat.   >You speak of capitalism in a political sense which is not what I am speaking of.  There is no separation between economics and politics. All economy is political and all politics is economic.  >Socialism spreads the wealth how? What if I don’t want to pay for other people? How is it fair for me to be forced to pay for others shortcomings if I do not want to? What if I want to be an individual? IMO taxation is theft and spreading the wealth is a tax.  Socialism has nothing to do with taxation. Socialism is democracy applied to the workplace. Capitalism is when capital (that is, property that exists for the purpose of being worked in order to produce) is privately controlled by a small group of people who make all of the decisions. Socialism is when capital is collectively owned and democratically run by the workers who interact with it every day.  I don't want to come off as condescending for laying out so many definitions. I don't think less of anyone's intelligence because they aren't familiar with the actual definitions of these terms because there's been a massive propaganda campaign to obscure them. Socialism has been equated with welfare capitalism and capitalism has been equated with lasseiz-faire capitalism so that the actual left is completely shut out of the conversation in mainstream politics because the language doesn't exist for a majority.
It's going to be difficult to explain because although I get that you think the program works and, as a programmer I would probably look at the code and agree in that context, you're clearly not up to speed on what mathematical rigour is.  Like I said, it's not a new idea. Google will tell you the difficulty and difference between computer software and the idea of a trivial program vs using computer software as part of a mathematical proof.  Maths is a very pedantic, nit-picky and rigorous subject, especially when it comes to accepting a proof as valid. [SEP] > you're clearly not up to speed on what mathematical rigour is.  > Maths is a very pedantic, nit-picky and rigorous subject, especially when it comes to accepting a proof as valid.  You are being incredibly condescending.  I know exactly what it is that you're trying to explain. It's just that our disagreement is NOT one of the nature of mathematical rigor, or how to apply it to a computer program, but rather how much is necessarily to apply to a quick and simple program which was used to verify a simple algorithm on reddit, for fun.  All it does is check some simple arithmetic. I'm taking for granted that if the program is coded correctly, it successfully accomplishes its goal, because I have absolutely no interest in taking this particular situation any more seriously than that and getting into the deeper philosophy of computational rigor.  Look, I was the one who originally said the proof was insufficient! But I was simply talking about the fact that a finite number of cases had been checked, and in mathematical terms that's a drop in the bucket. From a logical standpoint, it hadn't been proven even if you do accept the validity of the program. But, I'll accept it as a verification of these first N cases because in this casual setting I just don't care to apply the level of rigor you're looking to involve.
I haven't been upset by any comment here. On the contrary the poly folks do seem quite riled. I have also already expressed an opinion followed by a desire to not have to defend my opinion in this space since it was not the purpose of this thread.  I am sorry that you feel that your lifestyle is so subjugated and marginalized that merely stating an opposing opinion while expressing tolerance makes you and your friends see red while slinging both insults and accusations of bigotry, neither are called for. As stated the very idea that a simple sentence can shake such beliefs and cause such a reaction betrays a lack of faith in them. [SEP] >I am sorry that you feel that your lifestyle is so subjugated and marginalized that merely stating an opposing opinion while expressing tolerance makes you and your friends see red while slinging both insults and accusations of bigotry, neither are called for.  I'm starting to think you are just trolling at this point but your original comment was without doubt sincere.  Do you not see how your comment that started this conversation was insulting and ignorant?   >As stated the very idea that a simple sentence can shake such beliefs and cause such a reaction betrays a lack of faith in them.  You aren't shaking anyone's beliefs, to say something like that is also condescending.   If you don't want to explain your opinion, then why did you state it in the first place? Saying that a thread on /r/OkCupid isn't the place to talk about it is a cop out.
~~millionaire makers is nothing to do with /r/bitcoin~~  EDIT: to keep pedantic /u/MrZigler happy. /r/millionairemakers where the donation thread takes place is a different subreddit. Research is still underway to determine any users that frequent /r/bitcoin that may also have had involvement in /r/millionairemakers . Please check back in about a week when a full report will be published. [SEP] > to keep pedantic /u/MrZigler happy  =)  Happy New year, 1 condescending /u/changetip
That was my feeling exactly. I am not at all looking to get married myself, but I am not against it for others if that is what they choose. However, I got the sense that it was the marriage she was looking for, not the partner. I understand that marriage has been a kind of marker for commitment traditionally, but I feel that the union has out lived its usefulness. If a modern guy is buying a house with you and planning on children, I think he is in with both feet. Marriage is not a guarantee of the longevity of a union, but it may play into long held childhood fantasies or check off an item on a family expectations checklist. [SEP] >I got the sense that it was the marriage she was looking for, not the partner  > play into long held childhood fantasies or check off an item on a family expectations checklist.  This is so insulting and condescending towards those who want to marry. 
Layne is a knowledgeable guy but always seems like an arrogant dick. Some of his replies in the comments just make himself look bad he comes across like he has a superiority complex  [SEP] > comes across like he has a superiority complex  you'll find this to be very common (not necessarily the rule though) with people who have PhDs. I work in a lab and most of them are condescending pricks who take no blame for anything that goes wrong.
>Nothing about that definition said "changing" ones views... it's said expressing ones views in a way that it matches with what people want to hear. He sells single payer as a system that will cost the public less, cover everything, and never have any copays. It's being dishonest to promote a system that is so unrealistic but literally a checklist of everything Americans want "more things for less money!"  First, I said "changing what he says" not "changing his views." The act of expressing your views in a way that appeals to the public is pandering. If he's always said the same things, it's not pandering, it's his policy.  Second, I have no idea where you people get this idea that anyone thinks his healthcare plan is going to give us "more things for less money." We know exactly where the money will come from, and that will be from the exorbitant profits that the rich withhold from the rest of the public so they can line their pockets. Some of the money to pay for it will come from our own pockets, in terms of a federal tax that will be less than the vast majority of people's current insurance premiums.  >The fact that he criticized Clinton's plan tells you this isn't just about where he wants to start negotiations. This is what he wants. And no debate in congress is going to have him compromise on this issue when he thinks he's defending human rights. It's an idealistic position that gets us nowhere in actually figuring out how to get things done.  He's standing his ground, as he should on this. What gets us nowhere is constantly negotiating to the right of what we want. No debate in a republican congress will end well for us, but if we slack off and don't vote people into congress that will help us in the fight, then that's our own fault. It's a constant battle, not just some quick "vote for Bernie and forget it" thing.  >What?!? Context does not change the fact that he was not in solidarity with the effort because it would be politically unpopular. Civil unions was not a civil rights win for the LGBT community. It was a sell out. And Sanders advocated for that and then didn't fight to go further. Suggesting that he was actually supporting the LGBT community this whole time is just entirely dishonest. If he didn't have the integrity to stand up and fight when it was politically unpopular then he wasn't supporting them.  If you even bothered to look into why he didn't push for full marriage equality then, you'd see how ridiculous the idea was to fight for it. If anything, it was a smart political move to let the issue sit at the time and be brought up later, because there was zero chance of passing anything else about it when they just finished an insanely difficult battle just to get civil unions recognized. Civil unions weren't a sell out, they were the closest things to marriage equality that would make it in their state at the time.  One second you argue about how Bernie needs to come down from holding his views on health care, and the next you criticize him for coming to a compromise on marriage equality. Make up your mind, should he stand his ground or compromise?  >The point is that Clinton isn't selling herself as someone that has been consistent over her whole career. Bernie has. In fact Clinton on many issues has come out with honest explanations of how and why she changed positions. Bernie instead doesn't provide an honest explanation, he just denies.  No, Clinton just makes up excuses as to why she changed her position on things. Why would she suddenly change her own stance on gay rights after her long-held stance being that they don't deserve the same rights, other than to garner votes? She's a corporate shill who'll say or do anything to get into office. [SEP] > The act of expressing your views in a way that appeals to the public is pandering.  And that's what he does... He knows that these are not possible to pass and yet promises that as president this is what he'll do... there's not really any other way to spin this. It's pandering.  > I have no idea where you people get this idea that anyone thinks his healthcare plan is going to give us "more things for less money."  uhhhh...  > Some of the money to pay for it will come from our own pockets, in terms of a federal tax that will be less than the vast majority of people's current insurance premiums.  aka "more for nothing". He's offering that "everything will be covered". And that the country will spend less on healthcare. That's not how it works...  > What gets us nowhere is constantly negotiating to the right of what we wan  Uhhh aka as a compromise... what gets us no where is compromising?!? The GOP is more conservative than it's ever been. Democrats are farther left than they've been in 90 years. And your suggesting that Congress is getting nowhere because of negotiations that pull us away from that far left??? We live in the most partisan times in over 100 years. What you are saying is LITERALLY THE PROBLEM.  > If anything, it was a smart political move to let the issue sit at the time and be brought up later  lol!!!! So it was smart of Bernie to not advocate for gay rights in 2006 but it's smart politically to push for single payer in the most politically unpopular time possible?!?  And also please tell the LGBT community that him holding off on the issue was "a smart political move"... a community that didn't want civil unions... they wanted marriage... and his condescending pat on the head that "it'll just have to wait" is not someone who has shown solidarity for decades...  > One second you argue about how Bernie needs to come down from holding his views on health care, and the next you criticize him for coming to a compromise on marriage equality  lol it's ironic because YOU are the one that argued that Clinton should be criticized for taking the smart politics move to build off of Obamacare while at the same time when Sanders does the same thing it's okay...  > No, Clinton just makes up excuses as to why she changed her position on things.  You call excuses, I call explaining why your views have developed over time. Better than Sanders who just DENIES that there are some inconsistencies in his record...  > Why would she suddenly change her own stance on gay rights  Because no serious democratic presidential nominee supported gay marriage in the past... In the past it was enough of an issue that you couldn't win the presidential nomination if you supported it. Sanders knew this, which is why he tiptoed around the issue in 2006. But yet Sanders is praised for his "smart political move" but Clinton...  > She's a corporate shill who'll say or do anything to get into office.  And Sanders is a populist shill that will promise everything for the votes
Let's count the ways you are just not good at this.  1. I wasn't talking about the commenter, I was talking about the high number of dimwits who downvoted his benign statement. Reread and see if you can actually follow along.  2. What does 18% of social scientists being Marxist have to do with anything? I was responding to YOU and your dumb comment about anti-communidt sentiment in the 80s and claiming there is no justifiable way to call people commies in the current day.   3. Thinking that wanting to make money is inherently greedy is straight up Marxist retardation, and you are just standing your ground to keep from losing face at this point. Plot twist: you lost even more face by demonstrating the reading comprehension of a 4th grader. [SEP] > Thinking that wanting to make money is inherently greedy is straight up Marxist retardation  That is an ignorant generalization. You could have that opinion and not connect to communism on any other level. You could belong to a number of ideologies or none at all and still have that opionion.  > What does 18% of social scientists being Marxist have to do with anything? I was responding to YOU and your dumb comment about anti-communidt sentiment in the 80s and claiming there is no justifiable way to call people commies in the current day  No I didn't claim that at all, I said that it was not modern and typical for the 80's. I said that a bunch of narrow minded people like you have used it to burnmark people they disagree with. Most of your kind went over to calling people terrorists. There might be marxism left in the world but that is not the point, if you couldn't read my comment better than that, then I don't think I can get throught to you at all. Also you know that marxism spawned other ideologies than communism right?   The fact that you resort to juvenile language like "sucking the dick of.." etc. Just shows what level you are on and what quality of debate this is going to be. Being arrogant and condescending does not make you sound smarter either. You are narrow minded, brainwashed, rude and need to stay in your bunker waiting for the red threat to be over. News flash...the Russians are not coming for you.
I did not say the reason there are no peer reviewed articles refuting the claims by those warmists who edit the journals is because of the corporate media. I stated those as separate points. I believe Climategate proved how scientists who wish to protect their income collude to exclude any evidence that refutes or even casts doubt on the notion that a trace rise in a trace gas drives the warming of this planet. They even go so far as to omit data and make it up to keep the lie alive.  If human induced global warming is real, why do scientists who try to support the theory have to fucking lie and commit fraud to prove it? Why won't they debate or allow debate - you know, like how actual science is supposed to proceed? Why review the number of sites where readings are taken and omit those that record no temperature rise or cooling as anomalies while retaining those that have been surrounded by urbanization over time and show a predictable rise in temperature? Why omit ice core samples that show no high temps despite atmospheric CO2 levels being several times higher than now? Why omit results that showed CO2 rising AFTER warming, and thus placing doubt on the claim that CO2 is the driver of warming?  Your little presentation on the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was cute in its attempt at condescension. You neglected to add that the warming effect of CO2 does not increase at the rate of the volume of CO2 increase, and it certainly isn't exponential as your "scientists" pretend it is. The correlation is not sound, which is why details such as the cooling in the 40s and 70s is omitted from graphs, and readings are presented from after the start of the industrial revolution - intentionally omitting the fact that Earth was already warming as it emerged from the Little Ice Age before fossil fuel use began.  You need to get some information from sources other than your corrupted and political peer censored material. [SEP] After scanning that response, I still see no links or evidence... What's the problem? I have no interest in arguing with someone whose only tool to back up their conspiracy theories is speculation.   Thing is, if you actually had evidence, you would have already posted it. Instead, you respond with more claims and zero proof to support them...  >scientists who wish to protect their income collude to exclude any evidence that refutes or even casts doubt on the notion that a trace rise in a trace gas drives the warming of this planet. They even go so far as to omit data and make it up to keep the lie alive.  >why do scientists who try to support the theory have to fucking lie and commit fraud to prove it?  >Why won't they debate or allow debate - you know, like how actual science is supposed to proceed?  (Er, what? "Actual science" proceeds by scientists conducting research and experiments and publishing them in papers. Their findings are tested by other scientists, and eventually, one enough people have tested them and got positive results, they are accepted as peer reviewed scientific theories. Scientists have better things to do with their time than debate widely accepted facts in the scientific community with pseudo intellectuals who think that everything they do is all part of a huge government coverup.)  >Why review the number of sites where readings are taken and omit those that record no temperature rise or cooling as anomalies while retaining those that have been surrounded by urbanization over time and show a predictable rise in temperature?  >Why omit results that showed CO2 rising AFTER warming, and thus placing doubt on the claim that CO2 is the driver of warming?  Post evidence to back up all of these claims in your next reply, or I will assume that you have none and stop replying to you. As I said, I have no interest in debating conspiracy theories with nothing to support them.   My "presentation" was not meant to be condescending, I apologise if it appeared that way. All I was trying to do was find out what about it you suggested was wrong- if you are going to try and debunk something like global warming, you would've thought you'd have some sort of alternative for what happens.   >You neglected to add that the warming effect of CO2 does not increase at the rate of the volume of CO2 increase   http   You are referring to the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and it's warming effect described in the graph above? Er... yeah, I am aware of that... how exactly does it affect anything? That... doesn't mean that anthropogenic global warming can't happen...   For every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's warming effect doubles. If we carry on as a species, at the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase we have at the moment, it will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv. Moving on to this statement of yours:  >...and it certainly isn't exponential as your "scientists" pretend it is.  The situation I described is above a linear increase in global temperature, that is, in fact, an exponential increase. You have obviously misunderstood what the "scientists" are saying.   >The correlation is not sound, which is why details such as the cooling in the 40s and 70s is omitted from graphs,   http   You are relying on data that has been collected in the short term to prove your point. You give examples of cooling that happened in 2 decades and expect me to accept that that means global temperature isn't increasing? Newsflash... global warming due to CO2 isn't the only thing that causes global temperature to change... No scientist has ever claimed that.   (The sources for the data on that graph are here and here.)  >and readings are presented from after the start of the industrial revolution - intentionally omitting the fact that Earth was already warming as it emerged from the Little Ice Age before fossil fuel use began.  Or, y'know, that could have something to do with the fact that proper instrumental records of temperature have only been around since 1850...              
Sometimes I love arguing with trumpets because I know they'll never change their views on him but they'll keep trying to debate you like a cat chasing a laser pointer [SEP] >they'll keep trying to debate you like a cat chasing a laser pointer  Yea, I usually can't make it past a single reply. Tried to point out how what Trump does and what Streep said aren't even the same after someone called Streep's speech a "a hypocritical disgrace". Apparently being condescending to MMA and football fans or how "the past year and a half night show after night show has mocked trump, his wife, his daughter, and his children including his grade school son " are the same as making fun of the disabled.  I'm not saying either are right but they're not the same. Not even fucking close. 
> I am not deriding a coaching and mentoring approach to management, but rather pointing out that it is better suited to certain functions and grades than it is for others. At middle management level, it's very effective for running small teams of up to say 12 employees. But for running a huge transnational corporation of many thousands of employees? It's almost totally irrelevant, isn't it? I mean for a start, just who is this board member going to be coaching and mentoring in the first place? And to what end? Is it even a good use of their time for someone in a strategic role?  I mostly agree. Although I think that even when there is no direct contact, management style could have an effect, by the person preferring some policies over others. There is another [angle] to it. I could argue that a lot of corporate decisions have to do with the ability to predict how people will react to a product/advertising campaign/pricing strategy. Something that would be best severed by empathy. And just like there is usually a dedicated marketing/market research team that helps the senior management evaluate options, there could be (and probably sometimes is) a dedicated strategy team.  > For every successful company out there, there are scores of defunct ones. That may seem obvious, but the point is that the ones that do make it big, make it as much by sheer luck and being in the right place at the right time as anything to do with talent on their part.  I think there is a tendency for the process of a) New market emerges b) Companies fight for a share c) Some companies win d) They leave the market only when an alternative business model/product becomes dominant (ex. Kodak). The extent is debatable, but it would only weaken my point, not make it invalid.  > Wasn't me - I may disagree with your position and the underlying assumptions that support it, but I'm quite happy to discuss it with you.  That was my best guess.  --- ^^Disclaimer: ^^Unless ^^specified ^^otherwise, ^^my ^^opinions ^^about ^^groups ^^of ^^people ^^apply ^^to ^^the ^^majority, ^^or ^^the ^^average ^^member ^^of ^^that ^^group. [SEP] > I could argue that a lot of corporate decisions have to do with the ability to predict how people will react to a product/advertising campaign/pricing strategy. Something that would be best [served] by empathy.  I see your point here, but this brings me back to my earlier point that to believe that women contribute a greater degree of empathy said to be lacking in men is, for me at least, an argument that men and women are culturally and/or genetically more suited to some roles and functions within a company than others.  In fact, I even earlier gave the specific examples of "HR, training, PR and marketing functions" (which is what you refer to here) as being more suited to people with greater empathy, with a more mentoring and coaching approach to management etc.  As I mentioned above, I only discussed this for the sake of argument - my actual position is quite other than this. I do not believe that women can bring a more empathetic approach to board-level management because the requirements of the role are bigger than the individuals that fill it.  Women are absolutely capable of being CEOs, CFOs, COOs etc. and there are many real life examples that can be pointed to if you browse the Business pages of any quality newspaper long enough.   But to expect them to be able to being 'empathy' and a more 'nurturing' quality to a role where such qualities are, if not exactly redundant, certainly not the most key qualities to perform that function.   I also, incidentally, find it a little condescending to suggest that women being these so-called traditional 'feminine' qualities to the table on the one hand, and slightly insulting to men that they are somehow lacking in empathy.  It's also demonstrably false - the majority of nurses are women: now it might seem odd to argue that nurses don't have empathy, but in a way they don't, at least in their professional lives, because such feelings have to be suppressed when you're getting covered in mucus, blood, shit and piss several hours a day in an emergency ward or having to shove your finger up the bum of a 90 year-old man to check his prostate in less dramatic medical settings.  On the other hand, you have superb male actors, artists, musicians, poets and so on - these professions require quite high degrees of empathy do they not? - and in a more mundane sense, how many fathers really go above and beyond the call of duty to care for their children, even when they are adults? How many dad's would drop everything to travel half way across the country in the middle of the night to collect their daughter after receiving a call from them in distress? Not every male parent does to be sure, no - but they are by far more common than either the cold and remote patriarchs or the drunken abusers. 
Moderators work for free. There's much more polite ways to present your otherwise good idea without attacking them. If it's that easy, write the code and send it to them. Catch more flies with honey, right?  Personally, I think /r/Patriots is a relatively well-moderated subreddit. The one time I had a complaint about that annoying "a lot" bot, it was responded to and addressed within 10 minutes. Just talk to them like people. That's what they are. [SEP] >Catch more flies with honey, right?  you know what's also stupid: a condescending tone in an attempt to reprimand another adult, like a parent would a child, for what you believe is a breech of mutual respect between adults, right?
>WTF?  >No.  >You don't change the rules of Football, or Chess, or CS:GO to suit your playstyle, or how you think "the game should be played".  >The game is designed with a set of rules.  >Imposing your own rules, over the top of those, is the definition of scrub.  >Which part of this makes me an idiot?  Your ignorance makes you an idiot. Archangel Gabriel didn't reveal the rules of modern chess to Muhammad, that's not how it works. No game was created perfect, every game is subject to change and improvements. Arguably it is more difficult to improve millenia-old games like chess than to improve PS2, but even that happens quite often. The last significant changes in tournament chess happened in the 19th century after a rich history of continuous changes and local versions. The rules were only formally standardized during the early 20th, while smaller details still evolved less than 30 years ago.  No rule is inherently more legitimate than another. If banning tomcats makes the game better (and by 99% of pilots it does), then it makes no sense to keep them. Case in point, this is exactly why air forces often bilaterally agree to bushido rules for server smashes. [SEP] >Case in point, this is exactly why air forces often bilaterally agree to bushido rules for server smashes.  Lets start the reply by referring to the blatant factual inaccuracy (read: total bullshit) in your statement.  Define "often".  50%?  More than 50%?  Either way, you are talking shit. The overwhelming majority of SS did not enforce bushido.  PS2 is not chess. I love that you compare:  - changing the win condition - removing any spawn interaction (slightly important aspect of PS2) - outlawing more than 50% of the available equipment - drastically reducing the size of the play area (by more than a factor of 10)  To be comparable to balance tweaks in Chess.  This is not an argument about the legitimacy of rules, this about the scrubbiness of ingoing the common rules to craft a set more suited to your personal preference.  Removing spawn kills, flanking, troop sinking/timer ticking/redeploying from the game, you are ceasing to play "real" PS2. There is no "ignorance" in me stating this, and your tirade about chess is both idiotic and irrelevant.  By all means, reply with another condescending insult if you want.
The only rule I broke was challenging you on your misunderstanding of fallacies. You're claiming that I had done something to warrant being muted, yet it is obvious you did it for personal reasons. You're also lying, I did not receive 3 warnings before you muted me. You muted me then started telling me I was being warned as I challenged you further. You were simply annoyed, and then you abused mod powers.   The funny thing is that I was playing devil's advocate to help you find something to write about since you we're lamenting that you had nothing. I was simply being friendly by giving you a writing prompt. After that you said the topic was boring and anyone who would make such an argument had nothing to offer. I challenged you and asked questions. You responded telling me what I was thinking, but you got it wrong. Since I was playing Devil's Advocate, you were unaware of my mind moreover, you intentionally and unintentionally restated arguments that I did not make. You attempted to straw man the arguments I gave. I called you out on that. I also told you that it was okay because you were tired. I was forgiving you for your mistake. If you weren't tired, then I urge you to keep researching logical fallacies and watch them in yourself.   Lastly, you kept demanding that I respond to some ridiculous argument you made. I have no obligation to answer to irrelevant nonsense. If you're going to purposely distort my arguments, why would I honor them with a response?  If you're ever wondering why you have trouble keeping people in your room, this is one of those reasons. You need objective moderation. Not moderation used when you can't win without words.  [SEP] >The only rule I broke was challenging you on your misunderstanding of fallacies. You're claiming that I had done something to warrant being muted, yet it is obvious you did it for personal reasons. You're also lying, I did not receive 3 warnings before you muted me. You muted me then started telling me I was being warned as I challenged you further. You were simply annoyed, and then you abused mod powers.  You really weren't. In fact I checked with one of the regulars in a private chat before I muted you. Your tone was condescending, your argument unsupported and you attacked my alcoholism.  I muted you for 5 minutes, and only 5, to hammer home the warnings. You then pestered me in private chat. You have quite the persecution complex, you know?  >After that you said the topic was boring and anyone who would make such an argument had nothing to offer.  It was because you didn't offer an argument. You offered a position you continually spouted but didn't defend. Of course it was boring.  >You attempted to straw man the arguments I gave.  How? I didn't attack an argument because you never gave one. I said your position was a bad one.      >Lastly, you kept demanding that I respond to some ridiculous argument you made. I have no obligation to answer to irrelevant nonsense. If you're going to purposely distort my arguments, why would I honor them with a response?  If I have to respond to things like the ontological argument in there then you have to respond to me. If it was truly ridiculous then it should've been easy to rip apart?
You supported Paul and Kucinich? The two polar opposites in ideology? That makes sense.  And what's wrong with doing what he needs to win? He does. He may not be perfect, but he's certainly the lesser of two evils when it is a toss-up between McCain and Obama. [SEP] >You supported Paul and Kucinich?   I still support Paul & Kucinich. How can they be "polar opposites" when their platforms are similar in regards to civil liberties? They are different on economic policy, but both would do fine the the libertarian party. Your comment is condescending bullshit, if you knew more about these candidates you would see that they are not that different. 
Well, right now he's been unable to sleep due to all the pollen setting off his allergies. So I'm a little understanding that he's a bit under the weather due to lack of sleep.  He wasn't like this at all before he took this last job two years ago. He'd been deteriorating in the last year in terms of patience and it's only increased since we bought the house. The changes correlated with work stresses. We'd both hoped things would even out a bit, but I guess house and money stresses took over from work stresses. [SEP] > Well, right now he's been unable to sleep due to all the pollen setting off his allergies.  Bullshit. I have seasonal allergies like whoa and Zyrtec and Benadryl manage them just fine. Even when I’m feeling like I got hit by a truck, I don’t take it out on my partner. And I certainly don’t take it out on the people putting food in my fridge and a roof over my head.   Your husband is being a shit. And he is out of excuses. It’s past time for him to start pulling his weight again. If he’s not gonna work, that means taking over the bulk of home renovations. Not condescendingly (and lazily) forcing you to do everything so you “learn.” 
No, I don't think you have understand or have actually thought this true. Which is hardly surprising. On one hand, you are demanding that another group should consider themselves to be a third category because that's "better" for women. On the other, you're insisting that they belong to one of the original two categories yourself. If this is a compromise you actually want, then stick with it and stop calling transwomen men. They're either a distinct category or they're not.   Meanwhile, there is literally no reason for transwomen to take such a compromise because you will still call them men. Which is all this is. Just another way for GCers to try to move transwomen away from the category of women so it's easier for them to call them men. If you're going to do that, just skip the extra steps and go back to what you were doing in the first place.  [SEP] >On one hand, you are demanding that another group should consider themselves to be a third category because that's "better" for women.   Yes, they should. The condescending quotation marks just prove to me how you feel about women's demand.  >On the other, you're insisting that they belong to one of the original two categories yourself.  In our current society adult human male are still called men. Is that not what transwomen are?  >Meanwhile, there is literally no reason for transwomen to take such a compromise because you will still call them men.  You all have made pretty clear that you don't care about women, because y'all are self-centered and entitled. That's why you think there is "literally no reason for transwomen to compromise". You don't even listen when we explain to you why transwomen being grouped with women is damaging for women. If you really think it's just because we want an excuse to call transwomen men, you're an idiot.   
I had written a longer reply to this but hit the back button on my mouse when I was almost finished. Not doing that again.  There's no point anyhow, you're set to argue - not debate. You have nothing constructive to add.  I said multiple times trump hadn't given ANY specifics about this - so this was more a conversation between two people about philosophical ideals, you're just here trying to troll rather than coming up with anything constructive to solve the problem.   MSM stands for MainStream Media. There's not "plenty" of MSM sources.    http   6 companies control it all. Even reddit. You argue against governmental involvement - because politicians can have agendas. I see no difference here - because these people with agendas now have control of politicians.   I think there needs to be a solution - I have offered suggestions - none of which I think are complete - however you have chosen to tear apart ideas in their infancy for the sake of feeling somehow superior - while actually doing and contributing nothing.   Man up, or we have nothing to talk about.  Actually - ya know what - I'm done. You're just here to argue - not debate issues. It doesn't matter what I say - you're going to try to argue with it.  [SEP] > There's no point anyhow, you're set to argue - not debate. You have nothing constructive to add.  I was perfectly civil and calm. Then you started chalking up any disagreement I had with you to a dearth in knowledge or an inability to read. If you don't know how to carry yourself without being condescending, consciously or not, you just don't get to complain about people responding in kind.  > I said multiple times trump hadn't given ANY specifics about this - so this was more a conversation between two people about philosophical ideals, you're just here trying to troll rather than coming up with anything constructive to solve the problem.  > ...  > Which part of that sounds like I came here to propose a way to alter that state of journalism in America? Because I refuted your reform, I have to suggest my own? I'm happy with free speech laws in this country. Does media manipulation suck all the dicks? Absolutely. But that's as much a fault of the consumer as it is the ones spouting the lies, and I refuse to restrict the ability of myself or others to comment on public figures or happenings just because the average American is easily swayed into believing something.  ...  > MSM stands for MainStream Media. There's not "plenty" of MSM sources.  Which part of my response made it seem like I was confused about any aspect of that? People can get news from outside those 6 agencies, yes. To say that the only option is between Murdoch and state-controlled media, for the last time, is a false dichotomy.  > You argue against governmental involvement - because politicians can have agendas. I see no difference here - because these people with agendas now have control of politicians.  > ...  > Any dumb fuck can tell that the media is bought and sold. It's a product in a capitalist system- and you want to instill government control over it? I've considered damn well that the media has fucked intentions. I've just also fully considered the free speech implications of government censorship, and don't agree that it's a worthy sacrifice.  ...   > I think there needs to be a solution - I have offered suggestions - none of which I think are complete - however you have chosen to tear apart ideas in their infancy for the sake of feeling somehow superior - while actually doing and contributing nothing.  I would just quote everything I've said before, but that would be way too long. To feel superior? How about to stand up for something I believe in, like free speech?  And I don't read.  You proposed a change, namely removing the "of the press" aspect of the FIRST AMENDMENT. I proposed that was an absurd and disproportionate response. Are people too easily swayed by the media? Sure. Is the answer to put the media in the hands of the government, and let them decide where to sway people? Absolutely not.  If you propose a huge regression of basic civil rights, and someone comes along and says that's going way too far, suddenly that person needs to address your concerns with a different hypothetical that suits your fancy? Even if they don't agree with your level of concern in the first place? What?  But fine, I know you're going to bitch about how I'm "contributing nothing", although I'd argue that offering a counterargument to partially repealing the First Amendment is contributing plenty to this discussion, but sorry to challenge your ideals. But okay, here's my equally lofty, but far-less-Draconian proposition: education.  Maybe if we weren't plummeting in our level of education relative to other developed nations, we wouldn't also have such an incredible amount of people that can be fooled by an opinionated jackass on either side of the aisle. Your solution accepts people being fooled by the media as an inevitability, and then restricts those people's rights as a result. Again, news is a product in a free market. If you want sensationalist, inaccurate media to die out, then the consumer needs to be able to make an educated decision on which product to choose. If people aren't taught to think for themselves and instilled with K-12 education comparable to the rest of the world, it should hardly be surprising that consumers are making choices that aren't in line with their best interests. I'm trying to put this in economic terms, since a general appeal to civil rights was a complete non-starter.  > Man up, or we have nothing to talk about.  Grow up. Someone disagreed with you, responded in kind to your condescension, and provided plenty of counterarguments to each of your points; clearly they're a total pussy, right? Funny how it's a debate when you think you might still change my mind about a state-run media, but suddenly it's an argument when I point out my many issues with that. Learn the phrase "agree to disagree" if you find yourself at an impasse. Telling everyone you can't bend to your halfwit and clearly unconsidered notions of justice to "man up" isn't going to do you any favors, and just makes you look childish.
>The public already does that; it is just distributed. It wouldn't work in a centralized way, it would just be sold as google & facebook do now. How you can think that this many people would only be good hearted is baffling to me.  You know that's not how buying works.   "Facebook: Can we buy you  Buisness: No"  They can say no.  >Providing an even better way to blackmail, arrest, and assassinate freedom fighters and those who stand up to anybody.  There of course could be a reason for abuse, HOWEVER, by allowing it to be open, after a trial all information is to be disclosed for public review and the ability to hold a trial.  >How would they receive this money from this group apparently run by the public, yet it receives massive amounts of money to throw around? Taxation? You've just created an international government with access to everyone's personal information. It is a goddamn terrible idea.  Hence pipe dream, I am being idealistic, but government funded.  What do you believe in a completely anonymous internet?      [SEP] >You know that's not how buying works. "Facebook: Can we buy you Buisness: No"  I don't think you understand the context. "PUBLIC division of the police" we are the public division of the police, everyone is. We all have the info of people who use our servers.   >There of course could be a reason for abuse, HOWEVER, by allowing it to be open, after a trial all information is to be disclosed for public review and the ability to hold a trial.  So, I can frame someone as a child porn uploader and imprison them because they disagreed with me in public last week. Or because they are a threat to my power.   >Hence pipe dream, I am being idealistic, but government funded.  No, you are not being idealistic. If you fully thought through the gravity of what you are saying you would realize it is not the right way forward, and I mean that in a non condescending way.   >What do you believe in a completely anonymous internet?  Free markets, free speech, free access to information, equal ability to find work, ability to expose crimes without retribution, ability to innovate without religious or other nuts getting in the way. All of this can be eliminated; the instantaneous bridge of ideas can be eroded because some people think that general spying will solve some minor issues- they are mistaken because it will not solve those issues, yet it will destroy one of mankind greatest achievements: lightspeed travel of information. 
You're completely right on the first point, workers need to have inherit leverage in negotiations. But there will always be the rich, the middle class, and the poor in a free market system. I don't understand why you, or anyone else, care how rich people get? I applaud success and hope to emulate it someday, and I hope that if I do end up having the skills and intellect to one day outdo my parents current status that you or nor anyone else tries to take what I had worked hard for because there are people who don't have as much as I have. It's abhorrent for people to focus their energy on attacking those who are successful for having "too much money" when there are more pressing problems, like how to pump up the lower and middle classes by giving them more quality education and working experience, and working experience usually comes through minimum wage jobs. It's false to say many are stuck working close to it, when again, about 99% of people who work full time aren't working minimum wage. Health insurance is a different issue, and you are completely correct it is shameful. More competition in the free market brings down prices in services and goods, like healthcare. More competition in the labor market drives up labor price for companies, so giving people the OPPORTUNITY for experience and education is how you increase the competition in the labor market, which would drive up wages. And how do you get more experience? Working more. And how do you expect young people to get ahead, get experience, and to work more when 600,000 teen jobs were cut last time we raised the minimum wage. [SEP] >But there will always be the rich, the middle class, and the poor in a free market system.  That's fine if it rewards thing that are useful, but as it is now it's a flawed system. The rich are rewarded not for creating wealth or bringing about advancements, the rich are rewarded for extracting wealth from workers.  >I don't understand why you, or anyone else, care how rich people get?  ...this is exhausting. The problems with wealth inequality have been stated to death. Just recently:  http   >I hope that if I do end up having the skills and intellect  This is a bit of a just-world fallacy. Skills and intellect aren't required to become wealthy. The wealthy aren't all people who have "earned" it.  >that you or nor anyone else tries to take what I had worked hard for  The problem is that many get rich by taking from employees. You have things out of order.  >like how to pump up the lower and middle classes by giving them more quality education and working experience, and working experience usually comes through minimum wage jobs.  You do realize that we have more college graduates today then ever, and yet wealth inequality is the highest it's been since the great depression? The money is already there--the wealthy are just hoarding it.  >More competition in the free market brings down prices in services and goods, like healthcare.  No. This is naive and simplistic.  http   Competition is great where there can be failure. With healthcare, you can't have failure.  >so giving people the OPPORTUNITY for experience and education  Again, hours worked per year and the amount of education has never been higher. If that worked, the middle class would be a lot richer than it is.  This is going to sound condescending as hell, but whatever: The points you raise are seductive and easy to believe. Hell, I want to believe that hard work leads to success and that we live in a meritocracy. We don't. Wealth inequality is the result of systems and laws designed to help the privileged. I used to lean right back when I was your age, but then I realized these were mostly systemic issues and not individual issues.  "Freedom" just means more freedom for those with capital to tilt the playing field. Part of living in an advanced society is learning that everything can't and shouldn't be measured via capital. That's why people like Milton Friedman are assholes--women should be paid the same as men because it's simply the right thing to do. Companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against hiring women who may become pregnant because it's simply the right thing to do.
Dude I tried conceding and admitted my mistakes. You just wouldn't let anything go. That is why I was so frustrated. [SEP] > You said there are merits to the ABC claim, and there are disagreements about who was "first." I was ending the conversation.  And I responded to that by saying I didn't know enough to go into detail. As I said, I only brought up the disagreements and limitations to explain why I hadn't heard of the ABC. I'm not here to get into a debate about the merits of these claims.  > I admitted I was wrong  You said we "got lost in a semantic maze"...  > You just wouldn't let anything go. That is why I was so frustrated.  That tends to happen when you respond in a condescending or snarky manner while simultaneously being wrong. If you reread my comments, you'll note that I tried to keep my tone relatively flat until a couple comments ago. It's a far better way of communicating.  I just wanted to know what that dude in the video was talking about.
Well, I thought maybe being a bit shocking would help people with some sense see that right-wing libertarianism is absolute nonsense. That said, it's not an easy position I'm in: how exactly should I pull someone's head out of his ass without it hurting a bit? [SEP] >maybe being a bit shocking  Shocking? ...You give yourself far too much credit. I've had people call me horrible names and follow me into different subreddits just so they can berate me. I've had people wish death on my loved ones because of my political beliefs. Homie, you're not even close to "shocking".  >how exactly should I pull someone's head out of his ass without it hurting a bit?  Okay, you can be a condescending asshole, I'll give you that much. But shocking? You'd have to SWAT me.
> The average cyclist who buys a combination lock does so because they don't know any better  Sheesh, a moment ago you were saying they were all experts and self selecting specialists.  Don't join a debating society.  As I say, I'm not sure why you're waffling about day zero exploits and security by obscurity - no doubt terms you've read on the internet without really understanding what they mean or where they should be used.  > I was curious about your stance towards security and information in general.  Odd, because you haven't asked what my stance on these things is.   [SEP] >Sheesh, a moment ago you were saying they were all experts and self selecting specialists.  No actually, in my original statement I said the general population [of cyclists] includes but does not consist entirely of subgroups of experts and self selecting specialists such as racers, LBS employees, and thieves. I honestly find it hilarious that you somehow managed to misinterpret that. Seriously, go back and reread the sentence over and over and over.   And honestly no. You're not a person I care enough about to ask their stance about much. The lockpicking thing was a feeler, nothing more.   >As I say, I'm not sure why you're waffling about day zero exploits and security by obscurity - no doubt terms you've read on the internet without really understanding what they mean or where they should be used.  Please continue to be condescending and pedantic while missing everyone else's point entirely and endlessly trotting out defenses of your own point. It doesn't help that your reading comprehension is clouded by your desire to read yourself being oh so right. The fact that you can't see the relevance of those other examples in the context of security and the discussion of publishing lock-opening techniques reflects badly on you.
The first URL there is related to refractory periods in neurons and cardiology, the second is chiefly related to refractory periods in cardiology. None of these have to do specifically with post-orgasmic refractory periods. It'd be a real stretch to argue that those links were even remotely relevant.   Like I wrote here: We can all google as well as the next person. I'm looking for specific expert knowledge.   So, people: Forget refractory periods. I don't want to hear you saying that term again. Your knowledge of that term doesn't impress me, and without trying to be unkind: Your links show that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm extremely confident that someone with real expert knowledge of what I'm actually asking about could explain it without using that term.   ^(^)^(subreddit title possibly relevant) [SEP] > \^subreddit title possibly relevant   No, you're just being an asshole.  You asked for information and I tried to do you a kindness by finding you some, and you give me some condescending spiel about how the links aren't relevant and you don't want people to use the term refractory period again because you'd rather be a choosing beggar than take a moment to do a google search of your own.  No one is trying to impress anyone by using the term refractory period, you cock. It's just the most precise scientific term that many people know to describe the phenomenon they're experiencing.
Yes, I know all these things. In fact some people really close to me have been addicted to heroin, and I'm white and they were white. I'm just pointing out that drug epidemics have been around for decades now but we only started approaching it with sympathy as a country when it reached a certain demographic, and that just bugs me. As a smoker and a heavy drinker I even understand addiction. Maybe that's why I know better than to start an addiction 50 times as powerful as what I already have. If I get prescribed any opiates, I'm flushing them down the toilet. People can be a little smarter, I think.  [SEP] >I'm white and they were white   Learn what  >It's not black and white   Means.  I'm 21. How could I have shown sympathy decades ago? It's probably changing bc younger people are growing to be more progressive and more educated  >People can be a little smarter   Yes they can. That's why you educate rather than be condescending dickheads. They obviously didn't get the education they needed and they got swept into something bigger than them. We need more education not belittlement and prosecution.. Is that too hard to understand?
Loool really? You'd call this a masterpiece of a campaign? I could go on all day why this campaign and story blows. I'm on mobile right now but I will gladly spell out the reasons why this story is god awful later  Edit: Taking what I posted from a Youtube comment and slightly modifying it.  First, the stories within the games should be self contained. One should not have to read extended media to know what happened to other plot points started in Halo 4 or were introduced outside the games like fighting/sealing the Ur-Didact, the Janus Key, and Chief reuniting with Blue Team. Especially not from some backwater comic that a lot of lore fans didn't even read.  Halsey, Palmer, Cortana and even Chief had sudden personality shifts. What happened to Palmer disliking Halsey? They had moments of interaction, but Palmer didn't say anything to her. Halsey had a sudden change of mind from the end of Spartan Ops when she stated 'I want revenge on the UNSC'. Yes you can say she just said that to Jul to gain his trust, but something like that should be clarified rather than leaving the player guessing. When has Cortana disliked Halsey? Chief mentioned to Cortana something along the lines of "You mean like what Halsey did to me", with an undertone of resentment. Except in Fall of Reach, it was explicitly stated he was grateful he became a Spartan, as he was allowed to become the full potential a human could be and he wouldn't even know what he would be doing had they not taken him.   Speaking of Jul, way to kill him off at the end of the first mission. It felt rushed and was an incredibly disappointing conclusion to an interesting character since the Kilo 5 trilogy. And the Prometheans turned on the Covenant? When was this? I'm assuming Escalation, but not everyone read Escalation. If the Ur-Didact was sealed in Escalation, then what are the Prometheans doing? Who is leading them, what is their goal?  Blue team served no actual story purpose and it felt like they were just tacked on because 343 is advertising this new fireteam co-op thing and you will need a team for the Chief missions. Locke and Tanaka had no personality, Vale had a bit, and Buck did, but it's different than the Buck from ODST who was more serious and butted heads with the wise cracking Romeo. "Miss Naval Intelligence. Our new boss. So check your mouths, find your chairs, and get set for a combat drop." Instead he turned into the wise cracker now. I had expected Buck to go against Locke a bit, as Buck used to be a team leader and there are some decisions he would have made differently than Locke. I expected Osiris to have a skirmish with Blue team and lose horribly due to their own lack of teamwork and Blue team's superior teamwork, which then spurs Osiris to talk to each other and get to know each other. This would lead to character background and development, and after trusting and opening up to each other, they begin to work better as a team and later have a rematch with Blue Team where they are more evenly matched.  Cortana living was incredibly glossed over. Everyone was either casual about it or already knew, except for Roland. Even Chief, when he first sees Cortana and she tells him to go to Meridian, he completely accepts it. Despite the next line he said, in response to someone from Blue Team (I forgot who asked) asking isn't Cortana dead and he responds with "I saw her die with my own eyes". So why tf was he so casual in accepting she's still alive? This casual glossing over Cortana's survival greatly cheapens the ending scene of Halo 4. We were told that Halo 5 was about Chief dealing with his personal loss, yet we got none of that.  The advertisements were blatant lies. Yes, other Halo games had trailers that didn't show up like Halo 3's Believe, ODST live action, etc. But they were just hype trailers. Halo 5 had trailers explicitly telling us to be excited about this stuff that would be in the game that was not in the game. "Greatest hunt in gaming history"? That could barely quality as a hunt, Locke and Chief met literally one time as adversaries and the whole "hunt" lasted only like 3 missions. We had expected a more morally gray story, questioning whether Chief was in the right or not, with Locke and Osiris tracking him down from world to world and finding out clues that either starts to clear up the true story or add even more confusion. "Hunt the truth"? What truth? They knew from the get-go where Chief was going and why, they just wanted him to come back. The ads sold us a completely different game that no other Halo game did before.  Just a few other notes. It completely contradicts Silentium that the Domain is still active, as the Domain being Precursor technology and therefore would be destroyed by the Halo array was a huge plot twist at the end of the book. It makes no sense that only connection was cut off and it could be reactivated from a Forerunner installation. This completely contradicts what was told to us in the novel. The only possible explanation there could be is that the Domain chose to show itself at this time, but it still does not explain how it survived. I am pretty sure the Halo array affects even slipspace. And the first cutscene with Roland, it implied there would be a subplot of Roland agreeing with Cortana, as he got angry that Lasky, Halsey and Palmer were blaming Cortana. In his own words "Why is she at fault? For living when she wasn't supposed to?" Yet this subplot gets resolved offscreen and Roland wants to help stop Cortana again.  Not to mention fighting the same boss like 10 different times. That's pure laziness and uncreative. How did Halsey know all this stuff was going on with Cortana while she was in Jul's captivity? Who knows.   This story makes no sense and is all over the place. False advertising, missing information, bad characters and no characterizations, all in all this is probably the worst story I've seen from any Halo campaign. Bar none [SEP] > When has Cortana disliked Halsey?  I recall that in Halo 4 when Cortana was really showing signs of rampancy she was supposed to be docking at the science station around a Halo but she was ranting about Halsey and said something like "Do you know what that condescending bitch said to me after our first game of chess? I'm your greatest achievement and you detest me!"  I agree with everything else, though.
First let me say that I'm not trying to gaslight you. I understand that the Gaming Pop Quiz is a real thing. But, I do wonder if it's a black and white phenomenon.   The reason that I ask is because I usually ask a bunch of questions when I meet a gamer of either gender. I don't do it to check the other person's legitimacy but just to identify common interests and get a feel for what type of gamer they are.  Can you easily tell the difference between that type of questioning and the Gaming Pop Quiz? I would hate to think that I am making anyone uncomfortable. [SEP] > Can you easily tell the difference between that type of questioning and the Gaming Pop Quiz? I would hate to think that I am making anyone uncomfortable.  Since you're probably the 20th person to ask this I should probably edit my original post, but yeah, it's easy to tell the difference. One is obviously condescending and mean spirited while the other is just a nice conversation.
Atheism is too simple. And I will tell you another view that is also too simple. It is the view I call Christianity-and-water, the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right -- leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys ' philosophies.  It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of--all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain--and, of course, you find that what we call 'seeing a table' lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to the end of.  A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not and the modern world usually is not -- if you want to go on and ask what is really happening -- then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple.  Very often, however, this silly procedure is adopted by people who are not silly, but who, consciously or unconsciously, want to destroy Christianity. Such people put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they then complain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made 'religion' simple, because simplicity is so beautiful, etc. You must be on your guard against these people for they will change their ground every minute and only waste your time. Notice, too, their idea of God 'making religion simple'; as if 'religion' were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature. – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity [SEP] > When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they then complain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made 'religion' simple, because simplicity is so beautiful, etc.  This is a bit condescending.
> There's also the fact that most Republicans are voting for Trump and Trump is currently at the top of almost every poll. You don't have to be omniscient to be aware of this simple fact.  You do if you're going to quote favorability to support your point in one breath and then denounce favorability in the next when it's convenient.  > You're being redundant. "Quote-unquote" is something you use in spoken language to delimit a quotation. Using it prior to actual quotation marks in written language is just tedious and repetitive. Just thought you should be aware of that.  And you're being pedantic. You're transparently reaching to make yourself sound smart. Just thought you should be aware of that. [SEP] >And you're being pedantic.  And you're being a condescending smartass who insults others for not believing exactly what you believe. You're no better than Trump or any of the others you constantly bash and belittle. :D
Don't you see the disconnect, you rightly mention how gender roles and masculinity harm men, but you're putting forth a rather patriarchal concept which is that your worth is dependent on if you've had sex and how much of it you have. Just be happy, live your life, masturbate a lot (and learn to enjoy masturbating and not fixate on sex so much) and things will go your way in the future. Get involved in your local radical scene, maybe you'll find someone. Experiment with homosexuality, maybe you'll really enjoy it?  Dwelling on your status as an incel is incredibly unhealthy. All you have to do is go on an incel sub and see the misery. Focus on making yourself a cool and interesting person, learn to be relatable and talk to people. There's a lot of other lonely people out there, you'll find someone.   [SEP] >putting forth a rather patriarchal concept which is that your worth is dependent on if you've had sex and how much of it you have.   IMO that's a rather dismissive attitude. Sex and intimacy is as fundamental to human well being as having normal friends. Telling someone it's just the patriarchy is condescending and shitty.
BS on your part. Businesses are the biggest investors in what direction a city goes.  Cops are not charged with keeping average citizens safe.   Who told you that?  Warren v. DC: The police have no duty of care to citizens, and I quote: "District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine." ^1  1.  http   Read up a bit, my man. I think you could benefit. [SEP] > Read up a bit, my man. I think you could benefit.  You might have brought up an important bit of knowledge, but don't act like everyone is supposed to know everything.  I agree with your point, but your last comment was condescending.
It was disappointing in the sense that I didn't feel anything. Normally I'd go to these things and at the very least be happy to see my friends. But this last conference was...kind of disorganized and mediocre. I connected with no one. The presentations were trite. I needed more than some 'stay strong!' 'chant more!' platitudes and I didn't get that. Maybe I felt that way because I was about 90 percent mentally out and I saw it for what it was. Or maybe I wanted there to be some magic experience that renewed my faith. When that didn't happen, I knew it was a matter of time before I left completely.  It felt like dressing up nice and putting on makeup, traveling to a fancy restaurant, and when you look at the menu there ain't shit on it but Kraft mac-n-cheese and chicken fingers. And you reallyyy had your mouth tuned up for some cacciatore. So you go home disappointed that you got served toddler food when it was advertised as a high end establishment.   I threw away my program booklets, but I don't even need to go into detail about what was said because it's the exact same stuff you hear at district meeting and SWS.  [SEP] > you got served toddler food   That's what SGI has devolved to in the wake of the excommunication. I joined in 1987, several years before, and at that time, there was a lot of emphasis on "faith, practice, and study". And we studied! We studied concepts like "shiki shin funi" (the oneness of body and mind), "esho funi" (life is reflected in its environment), "hendoku iyaku" (changing poison into medicine), and the various characters from the stories - Sessen Doji, General Li Kuang, Bodhisattva Fukyo - the Japanese names for the gosho. The SGI changed those from tranliterations to translations and they lost all their "magic" - who cares about "the Boy Snow Mountains"?? Who can remember "On Establishing the Correct Teachign for the Peace of the Land" - yech! What a mouthful! Rissho Ankoku Ron, baby! We studied the samurai culture of Nichiren's day, history, all kinds of stuff.  But this ONE time, some of us Youth Division peoples decided we were going to have our OWN informal study meetings - just a few motivated youth division members. The MD HQ leader got wind of it and forbade it - said that the YMD would just be studying the YWD and vice versa. How condescending! How insulting! Especially in light of the fact that some 80% of our YMD were gay and over half of our YWD! Plus, we were all in our late 20s - early 40s. We were grown-ass men and women, and if we wanted to STUDY something, we could goddamn well study it! But we didn't :( Instead, we obeyed O_O Imagine, DISCOURAGING youth from studying!  That little episode also illustrates how the SGI infantilizes its membership - treats them as foolish, careless children who need to be directed, controlled, and protected. Once, a guest was invited to the nearby community center for a study meeting. Everyone had a good time, and afterward, people were chatting - the women especially were swarming around him like bees because he was handsome and affable and a photographer, with lots of interesting stories and everybody was just having a lot of fun. After this meeting, the leaders declared that this guest was a "temple spy" and that he'd been there "recruiting" (never mind that he was an invited guest) and they BANNED him from the community center! There would be no discussion, no appeal. BOOM  I have a big problem with this. If the SGI members are so weak and suggestible that they'll be taken in by the first Nichiren Shoshu temple come-on they run across, that says more about the sad state of SGI members' faith than it does about anything else. Everybody is advertising - you can't keep people in a box where they can't see or hear it! Far better that you teach them what to be on guard for, to recognize manipulative approaches and fallacious claims for what they are.  And if some SGI members would be happier with the Nichiren Shoshu temple, they should go join it! We have freedom of religion for a REASON - it's to protect people's freedom of expression and freedom of individuality! SGI wants to force everybody into the one-size-fits-none of its Ikeda-worshiping cult, but most people don't want that. 95% to 99% of SGI members have made it clear they don't want that by QUITTING! They leave and they never come back! Yet the SGI leadership can only think of further isolating the membership and blaming "outside forces" for luring "their" members away. To their DOOOOOOM!!!  Fuck that shit! Nobody wants anything to do with that grotesque lizard-creature Ikeda. SGI can't deliver on its promises, and there's the disturbing "actual proof" of SGI leaders dropping dead from cancer, freak accidents, MURDERS, MORE murders, and suchlike. SGI's full of addicts trying to get more people hooked.  #What other organization has such a high toll of human misery to its credit??
I appreciate the sentiment, alas, I'm not a caveman. I'll not eat something I don't need to.  PS: Ew. [SEP] > I'm not a caveman  So anyone who doesn't mind eating a horse steak is a caveman? A bit condescending, no?  > I'll not eat something I don't need to.  You only eat to not die from starvation?!
Those ships look pretty similar. When you take a comic or book adaptation almost 100% of the time there are aesthetic changes made to some things. When everything is speculation you can make little jumps of faith like this to help lend credence to your argument, its what makes it fun! Also you know what that guy meant relax a bit. [SEP] >Those ships look pretty similar.  Flat, wide, grey, with two engines. Similarities shared with a number of other shuttles in the SW universe. Sure, it seems reasonable... if you only look at the Jakku ship and Luke's shuttle in a vacuum where no other ships exist. Look outside that narrow scope and it's pretty clear the "similarities" are incredibly generic.  >When everything is speculation you can make little jumps of faith like this to help lend credence to your argument, its what makes it fun!  There's well reasoned speculation, and then there's wild speculation. And like many, I don't find leaps of faith in logic all that entertaining. Leaps of logic also don't really help lend credence to an argument for any logical thinker.  >Also you know what that guy meant relax a bit.  And how do you know that? Given what I asked, I thought it was pretty darn clear that I do not know what he meant. I find it odd you somehow came to the opposite conclusion.  By the definition of the word, I do not understand how what I said could be considered condescending. On the chance you're talking about "offhand", again my actions don't fit the definition of the word.  So if words aren't being used correctly, why should I understand what is meant? I'm not a mind reader.
>>I have never met a single Asian person who feels racially superior to whites,   Lol. How many Asians have you met? A dozen?  >>There is no racism towards westerners in Asia.   Double Lol. When have you been to Asia? [SEP] > Lol. How many Asians have you met? A dozen?  Not just the ones I have met personally. Crime statistics are also on my side, how many hate crimes are there against Asians by whites and how many against whites by Asians?   > Double Lol. When have you been to Asia?  Yes, and saw a ton of rude drunk white people who treated everybody like shit and acted like it was their playground. They never got a single racist comment, they also talked really condescendingly about the natives too. 
Then pack your shit and go. We don't need you.   This is how I see "Bernie or Bust'  You're the people that walks into a grocery store after moving into a new neighborhood. It has everything that was in your old grocery store except this certain brand of bread that says 'organic' on the label. You go up front to see if they can get it. They can get it but it will have to be put on order. They can't deliver it to you right on the spot due to a system, that's been in place since the grocery store was built. You throw a tantrum and say "fuck it. Bern the store down. Fuck everyone else that shops here. People in the neighborhood have no meaning to me if I can't get exactly what I want. They can get my 'organic' bread, but don't have it right at this moment and that's not acceptable. I've never been a customer here, but they should have my particular brand and type of bread. Yes, they have other organic bread, but it doesn't come from the same farm that the cool old guy I know told me about. Fuck it. Bern down the store!"   This is what you Bernie or Bust people are. Just a bunch either whiny brats, or Republican plants.  [SEP] >Then pack your shit and go. We don't need you.  If you expect to win by alienating 15-20% of your voters you are basically the ones burning it down. I have no loyalty to this private club and many people dont either. If you choose not to at least address their concerns you are the ones causing harm to your own party. I still have not heard what HRC thinks about the Nevada state convention, if you could link me a statement I would appreciate it.   But go ahead, continue to call people and be condescending, because thats how adults have civil conversations these days...
For those who want to see it in action here's a Leopard vs Porcupine.  WARNING: There's a decent amount of blood and this is nature so it may not end how you want.  EDIT:Since you guys are into nature here's a Impala tree takedown  Last Edit: Puma vs Sloth (5 min) [SEP] > nature so it may not end how you want.  No kidding :c
> But some people say "lets wait for the facts" and that is not the fucking same as saying "the accuser does not matter"!  it depends on what "wait for the facts" means for you.  For some, it's a honest statement they'd say about anything.  For others, its a dodge to avoid confronting the idea that their idol might be a rapist.  it's different for everyone.  But, on it's own merits..."wait for the facts" essentially means "I don't believe you until more information is provided".  This is the very essense of the words.  Its up to you if you feel that what Kane provides for you is worth it.  Many people have decided that scoring goals in hockey does not warrant this. [SEP] > on it's own merits..."wait for the facts" essentially means "I don't believe you until more information is provided"  First of all, it doesn't mean that. Secondly, what is wrong with saying "I don't believe you until more information is provided"? This is not an insult. I agree there could be a softer way to say this. But it's actually a reasonable stance. 
I wouldn't be surprised if something's up, whether or not it's malicious or whatever. Non-political subs don't tend to welcome political discussion, as it can quickly become divisive and devolve into something that isn't really constructive or desirable.  It might be plausible that the mods wanted to remove it to keep politics out, but it got enough initial traction that they couldn't do so without people noticing. That's just conjecture, though. I can't say I really envy people who mod default subs, it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit for little to no reward. [SEP] >It might be plausible that the mods wanted to remove it to keep politics out  I actually just recieved a mod response *"We don't allow political/inflammatory posts here. That's not the vibe we are going for."*  The problem is that they leave up many political posts with recent political discussion in them. The posts that tend to get removed paint the US, its allies, or corporations in a bad light.   >it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit for little to no reward.  That depends on your viewpoint. If you compare the front page of Reddit to mainstream news channels, the traffic is the same. Fox news hits a million people per day. CNN about half that, and the rest of the mainstream channels are much less. The posts on Reddit's front page can easily hit 1 million views per submission (imgur and similar links anyway. Videos and articles get less views due to the time investment). With those numbers, I think it is insane to think that Reddit is an organic, user-generated platform without massive outside influence. 
Wasn't expecting Denver to be so cold. Poor planning on my part, but having a great time at GABF. Ran into a few Atlanta folks last night.  [SEP] > Wasn't expecting Denver to be so cold.  Have you not learned ANYTHING from Coors commercials?
I'm confused, BA is Bachelor's of Arts right? and BS is of Science? Yeah the class listing was on there before I got my first internship, mainly to take up a huge amount of space I couldn't otherwise fill [SEP] >I'm confused, BA is Bachelor's of Arts right? and BS is of Science?  That's right.  I would just check the program again.  Most accounting degrees are a BS.  I can't recall ever seeing a BA, but obviously I am not familiar with every college or university in the country, much less the world.    I notice someone advised you to remove your sub shop experience.  When I see really long resumes that include these types of jobs, I often give the same advice.  Your resume needs to be fluffed up.  So unless you have some other more relevant experience to replace it, I would leave it.  In fact you need to at a minimum list what your  responsibilities were.  Sometimes you can pull some relevant experience from these positions. For instance, maybe you reconciled cash at the end of your shift.
>Well I'm not going to argue with you but if you take a look at scripture, it's undeniably redpill. However, Christians may or may not live in that manner. That is why it's the people that are the problem, not the religion.  Yes believing in a zombie as your God is red pill.  Red pill is based on reality, Christianity is not, and worse, Christianity creates weak selfless men.  [SEP] >Yes believing in a zombie as your God is red pill.  Jesus isn't a zombie. Someone who is resurrected just comes back to life. In a fantasy setting like D&D I guess everyone who has been brought back to life is a zombie?  As an Atheist who attends bible study and worship, I would recommend it for multiple reasons including networking. I found it shocking how much of the guidelines for living that I already agreed with. For example at my church they are very against pornography. They don't really understand why it's actually bad for you, but it's good advice that only religious people and politically incorrect groups like TRP even talk about.
That's completely wrong. You will start with 0 legendary marks on Tuesday, but will have a commendation for every 50 vanguard/crucible you hold. The commendations give XP, not marks. [SEP] > The commendations give XP, not marks  Not correct, It will give you reputation (rep.), a commendation from "The Dark Below" would convert into rep. when deleted after "House of Wolves" and it gave you 250 reputation, and 312 with the Nightfall buff, I guess that 50 marks would convert into 250 rep., but with the nightfall buff not being granted anymore, and automatically given to everybody, one could hope for 312 rep. per 50 marks, or even more. :-)
> War is the absence of a monopoly on violence. In war, there is almost no law, hence legally-created equality doesn't exist. It's not as ridiculous as your kneejerk rejection insists.  WTF?  Do you have no idea what I'm talking about?  I'm talking about the rules *within* the military (which, by the way, exists whether or not it is at war).  In war, there is not "almost no law."  You cannot shoot your commanding officer in a  war.  If you do, you will be put in front of a military court, you will be dishonorably discharged, and probably sentenced to death.  There is absolute rule of law.  The rule of law is only more strict; the commands of officers take on the character of law; the duties of employment take on the obligations of law; law is nowhere more powerful than within a strict authoritarian military hierarchy. [SEP] > WTF? Do you have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm talking about the rules within the military (which, by the way, exists whether or not it is at war).  So why should an organization centered around war go out of its way to make claims of non-discrimination?  > In war, there is not "almost no law." You cannot shoot your commanding officer in a war.   Highlighting exceptions doesn't make them the rule.  > law is nowhere more powerful than within a strict authoritarian military hierarchy.  Oh. And what about the surrounding civilian populace during a conflict?
Sheesh, if a noob like me saw a cheap panther mount and bought it... I didn't know the cost to make one... I didn't know panthers were made...  I would hope that's not a permaban  edit: That's not sarcasm, I'm fresh back after ~5 years [SEP] >That's not sarcasm  Just for information's sake, a Jeweled Onyx Panther is made by combining the other four gem panthers. Each of these four panthers require a "Orb of Mystery" to create, which is *only* available from a vendor for 20k(and from blingtron if we're being pedantic, but the drop chance is miniscule).  Thus, a jeweled panther that's sold for under 80k(or even 90-100k due to other mat costs and crafter's profit) is 99.9% duped(with the VERY slight offchance of someone selling to transfer gold quickly between servers).
OMG. I used to interview people for Customer Service jobs. At ANY job interview it's a very bad idea to bring someone with you; even just to sit in the waiting room. We've had people bring the entire family and extended family...all kids included... There are places who now specify on the application that if you are called for an interview, you must come alone.   Yeah. Don't EVER go to an interview accompanied or escorted. It's career suicide.  [SEP] > There are places who now specify on the application that if you are called for an interview, you must come alone.  I would leave it off the application. They just removed level 1 of the screening process.
> My suspicion is that you're more objecting to the fact that the onus apparently falls on women to do X, Y, and Z to avoid getting raped, while there's relatively little "bombarding" of men in terms of reinforcing behaviors and messages that it's a man's responsibility not to force himself on women. Which I happen to agree with.  This is the issue.  And clearly I failed to articulate it properly.  I'm in no way saying that women *shouldn't* take precautions because the bottom line is that rape exists.  I was simply lamenting on the fact that I have to do all these exhausting, unfun, inconveniencing-other-people things in order to have a good time.      I am not at all suggesting that X, Y, and Z are unhelpful.  I never suggested it and never would.  Seriously?  That's ridiculous.  The problem with how the anti-rape system works now is that it is, quite literally, making women terrified of men.  While a level of caution is healthy and will keep you safe, I feel genuinely afraid when I walk from where I parked my car to my apartment (100 or so feet) and there's a man standing there.  I've been told, time and time again, that it's entirely possible he'll rape me.  And that's awful.  I suppose it's the simplest, easiest method, but I'm not convinced it's the most beneficial for both genders.   [SEP] > The problem with how the anti-rape system works now is that it is, quite literally, making women terrified of men.   This sucks so much on both sides of the fence.  I'm very much literally terrified of women because I don't want to be perceived as rapey. I've always had trouble connecting physically with other people because I had it drilled into my head from a young age (by the 'anti-rape system', as you put it) that even so much as looking at a woman the wrong way is terribly offensive and hurtful. It took me years to learn to hug family members without being scared that I'd come across as creepy.  If there was some way that men could lose the 'potential rapist' stigma, that would be super, but I don't realistically see it happening.
You forgot the original topic: whether its useless for people to use words to express discontent in the direction of a system governed by rough consensus. I was not arguing for or against a particular direction.  To use your marriage analogy, it's about whether it ever makes sense to use voice over exit if the person you marry becomes a religious fanatic and it ruins the relationship. [SEP] > whether its useless for people to use words to express discontent in the direction of a system governed by rough consensus.  Well it might not be useless, depending on what you think is useful. If you think sowing discord in the community for example is useful, then complaining can indeed be very useful to you.  I'm not making a utilitarian argument, but judging the action of nagging the core developers morally. To me it's like standing next to a fisherman and telling him to fish differently since you feel like you are entitled to the fishes he catches. When the fisherman explains to you why he likes to fish in the way that he does, should you keep nagging at him? Or should you get a fishing rod and do some work of your own?  Let me repeat my question since you ignored it:  What exactly you want to have happen? Should the core developers use their precious time to do what they think is lethal for bitcoin because a minority of users demand it on Reddit? If you can't suggest any concrete plausible actions and outcomes, then I'm left to believe that your goal is simply to sow discord.
Ah yes... Obsession as procrastination. I do this with my houseplants. I rationalize it by saying that doing a little bit of gardening/plant upkeep is relaxing and good for the brain, but I really just do it to avoid real work.  I think I will give KonMari a half assed try when I move next year. I am secretly just hoping to get rid of my boyfriends crap. BOXES OF TANGLED OBSOLETE COMPUTER CABLES DOES NOT SPARK JOY FOR ANYONE. [SEP] > BOXES OF TANGLED OBSOLETE COMPUTER CABLES DOES NOT SPARK JOY FOR ANYONE.  Yeah this is my main frustration right now.
People who need manuals to tell them how to live is not the ideal.  After being thrown into a new environment, can you observe, experiment and emulate your way into flourishing in the new place? There won't always be a book telling you what to do and you can't always trust the book.    [SEP] >People who need manuals to tell them how to live is not the ideal.  After being thrown into a new environment, can you observe, experiment and emulate your way into flourishing in the new place? There won't always be a book telling you what to do and you can't always trust the book.     Rp agrees with you.
And that's why we don't have a carbon tax?  And we have negative gearing?   The Liberals pay lip service to free market and dabble in protectionism. [SEP] > And we have negative gearing?  Negative gearing in real estate is in step with any other investment, though.  If you borrow to invest in shares (or anything else), you make a gain trading through the year, and the cost of borrowing is greater than the gains, then that loss is a tax deduction.  Stripping real estate of negative gearing means making real estate a special kind of investment.  Some people want real estate to be special, but as it is, negative gearing is not protectionism.  (Making a gain in most ventures is taxable, hence making a loss is tax deductible).
Group RPs deteriorate quickly after more than three people get involved. It's hard to hold up a plot line with lots of creative people, and the interruptions and backtracking gets awkward really fast.  Three is like the magic number -- four if you're all on the same page and compatible.  Now ... a bunch of people in a chat talking and pairing off works, but that's not really a role played story line. That's just a bunch of folks getting together to fuck. ;) [SEP] > That's just a bunch of folks getting together to fuck. ;)  Hey, nothing wrong with that, either! :P
I have a couple of wooden boards and proper butcher's blocks, but for the most part (cooking professionally and at home) I use ~1/4-1/3" thick plastic boards that cost ~12-50$ depending on size. I get mine from a restaurant supply store, but home kitchen stores will have similar (though maybe less heavy-duty) products.  With plastic boards, it is best to wash them in a dishwasher (since plastic boards have no antibacterial properties, the dishwasher sterilizes them). If you find they are starting to bend or curl, you can soak them in very hot water (or a hot water sterilize cycle in a dishwasher), and then just bend them back the other way by hand (source: I do this 1-2x a month with some of mine).  If you are hand washing plastic boards, you want to keep an eye out for the grooves and cuts that your knives will make in the surface. Watch for blackening and discolouration along those lines, as this can indicate mold or bacterial growth occurring in those grooves (and I guarantee hand washing will not properly sterilize all those nooks and crannies). When a good round of sterilization and bleaching doesn't seem to be doing the trick, it's time to get rid of the board. That said, your boards shouldn't get to that point, as I mentioned above I have several plastic boards which have been in daily use for upwards of 20 years, and they are fine.  The paper-thin plastic cutting surfaces are garbage, however.  As for wooden boards, hand wash them and oil them, but never soak them. Soaking will cause warping, and splits between slats. Even a 50lb, 4" thick butcher's block will warp if you soak it too much. [SEP] > The paper-thin plastic cutting surfaces are garbage, however.    This. Plastic boards are fine, as long as they're thick and are kept clean. The thin ones can do in a pinch, but they really are junk.
That's actually not true. Every year since they dropped the requirement you've still needed well below your BQ, more than a minute. [SEP] >Every year since they dropped the requirement you've still needed well below your BQ, more than a minute.  They dropped it for the 2013 race, and after doing so BQ was good enough. 2014 runners needed BQ minus 1:38 (in my age group) to qualify. There is a good chance that BQ will be good enough for 2015 as well.  2014 race: 1:38 faster than BQ needed (3:05 standard)  2013 race: no better than BQ was necessary. (3:05 standard)  2012  race: 1:13 better needed (3:10 standard)    
I thought he was spot on with Nintendo.  Nobody knows if Splatoon is going to great, but everybody is still calling amazing. LoZ was there for a very brief time and people are basically jizzing themselves like its gonna be the best game ever.   Their in their own little world appealing to fans who have already bought their console. We get it Nintendo, your 1st party titles are awesome...but they also don't drop in price for a long time...so I will buy your console when its cheaper and all of them are out. [SEP] >Nobody knows if Splatoon is going to great, but everybody is still calling amazing  A lot of people were able to get their hands on most of the games Nintendo showed though.  Nobody is saying "Splatoon is going to be great because a 30 second CG trailer told me it would be."  People are saying Splatoon is going to be great because they actually got to hold the controller themselves and join in on matches against other players.  They aren't basing speculation on a presentation or press conference; they're basing it off of gameplay.
In terms of mining, I know a block is just a bundle of transactions, but what does it mean to "find" a block? And why do transactions need to be organized into blocks? Why can't the blockchain just exist as a series of individual transactions without the block structure? [SEP] > And why do transactions need to be organized into blocks? Why can't the blockchain just exist as a series of individual transactions without the block structure?  Miners face a difficult problem: how to arrive at a single consensus view of the transaction history. They do this by agreeing to only build on the longest chain of blocks. Branches of equal length make this process take longer and open the door to double spending while unresolved.  So the key is to prevent long branches of equal length from forming in the first place.  Placing fewer transactions into each block means shortening the time between blocks. As this time window shortens, the probability that two or more miners will more or less simultaneously solve independent blocks increases. As this probability increases, so does the chance of creating a branch. With each passing time interval, the number of branches can multiply, leading each miner to have a slightly different view of the transaction history.  So, blocks contain multiple transaction to allow enough time to pass between blocks that a single clear longest chain can emerge.  For more, see:  http://gendal.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/bitcoin-mining-the-first-technology-platform-that-works-because-it-goes-slow/
That was very insightful thanks. You don't sound particularly religious though haha. [SEP] >That was very insightful thanks. You don't sound particularly religious though haha.  You're welcome. I'm not religious, and I see the Church (the Vatican, but also all other churches) as businesess. They are in the business of "saving souls" and they are competing for market share and profit, and in order to do that they have to sell something. In order to sell in a business, you either become a monopoly, or you need a competitive business model to win over as many customers as you can.   I'd like to point out something that /u/HarrisonArturus said in his answer.  >he's making a personal gesture during the Jubilee Year of Mercy and **calling people to "come home"** in a sense to a Church that is **ready and willing to lift whatever burdens they are carrying**.  This is exactly what I'm talking about. Until now the Church literally condemend the women, but now they are formalizing their services of "absolution".  They are trying to regain customers by adopting the morals of the current time. They cannot use their business model built on intimidation anymore.   You also have to undertsand that most of the burden they are referring to is the **guilt of having commited a sin", which is a purely artificial emotional anguish caused by religions.  Them offering absolution from the sin, is like a doctor giving you posion, then telling you to take this expensive medicine they happen to know that cures your poisoning.
> But can Russia bully the EU or NATO? I do not think so.  They already do. Ask the Baltics, or Romania which Rogozin threatened recently to send the strategic bombers. See the activity in Kaliningrad and the Russian Navy stance in the Baltic Sea. See the offer to split the Eastern Ukraine between Poland, Hungary and Romania, which Hungary's Orban took seriously. Orban now demands autonomy for Hungarians in Ukraine. See Grazprom's push to buy interconnecting pipelines in Hungary, Austria and Bulgaria. The Mistral ship will be based in Sevastopol, probably with the intent to project power to Odessa, control Transnistria and threaten Romania.    [SEP] > which Hungary's Orban took seriously.  Yes, but who takes Orban seriously?
> You can change mypace to something like easygoing, indifferent, laidback, etc. People won't know what it means otherwise.  I considered those of course. They were the first thing that came into my head. But each of those words is only a small part of 'maipeesu' and really the only way to describe it is 'doing things at one's own pace without heed to surroundings', which can't be described satisfactorily in any English adjective.  &nbsp;  Something like that can range from a completely lazy and easygoing person, to a jerk who doesn't sweat the details and just does as he pleases and challenging people across the globe to duels because he likes duelling.  &nbsp;  I then considered foregoing the adjective of course, and rewording the sentence to write that, but after much consideration, with flow, English and other factors on the scales in my mind, I came to the conclusion that it was least intrusive to flow to teach what 'mypace' meant at the top of the page. [SEP] > I considered those of course. They were the first thing that came into my head. But each of those words is only a small part of 'maipeesu' and really the only way to describe it is 'doing things at one's own pace without heed to surroundings', which can't be described satisfactorily in any English adjective.  Normally I agree with a lot of your opinions about translations that I see before/after chapters, but this is one that kind of confounds me. "Maipeesu" is clearly a loanword derived from "my pace," so while I don't disagree with using "my pace" I don't understand why you wrote it as "mypace" and why it required a note in the first place. I don't think the phrase "someone who goes at their own pace" is *that* uncommon, or at the very least I've heard it often enough living in various places in the U.S. that I could easily interpret what shortening it to "my pace" means.  "Marches to the beat of a different drum" would have been another alternative, but while it means the same thing it's a bit long.  There was actually another term you made a note about in another chapter that confused me in the same way. In chapter six you made a note about the phrase "a lukewarm gaze." Lukewarm is also a fairly common adjective in English to describe a lack of enthusiasm or disapproval.  There's no real harm in these notes, of course, and it's better to just make sure people know what it means if you're unsure that they will or not. I guess I just get a little surprised seeing terms I'm familiar with explained like they might be strange.
Flanks don't need buffs. You need to learn how to use them properly. I use flanks more than any other class and I do great. I don't use Andro that much but I have it at lvl5 and I think he can't compare to Buck. The point of flankers is to... flank, kill and distract enemies. Buck is just perfect at it, my fav flanker(in and out fast, heal, 3khp). What about Skye? Not every match is the same but mostly if you cant do good with her, that means you are not playing the game right (I compare her to viktor in terms of, they are so fucking easy to get kills, no skill needed to be good with these 2). Evie, I'm not very good with her, to tell the truth only used her 1 or 2 times so I'm not very good but I have been matched with and against so fucking good Evies (she's so annoying to deal with if used right),  Cassie is dope, but once they fix all the hitboxes, she will stop making kills even when people run from her arrows (hate this when I play against her, love it when I use her xD), Kinessa is good if their flankers don't do their job. Viktor i said before, no skill needed to be good. Bomb King seems pretty nice, and I'm gonna start using him now (didn't used him before because of all his bugs) and if done right can do huge amounts of damage even thou he is easy to counter and/or get rid of the sticky bombs. About Drogoz... I hate him, not my type.  This said, stop camping in the back with flankers and do your goddamn job and you'll see how good flankers are. [SEP] > she's so annoying to deal with if used right  I find it funny that Evie is nothing like Mei and yet both of them are cancer.
As @GrayConnolly has been reminding us, able bodied men heading desperately for EU welfare states speaks poorly of them & their countries.  Just came across that before reading this, you may find both those guys interesting.  [SEP] **@20committee**    > 2015-09-06 02:51 UTC    > As @GrayConnolly has been reminding us, able bodied men heading desperately for EU welfare states speaks poorly of them & their countries.    ----    ^This ^message ^was ^created ^by ^a ^bot    [^[Contact ^creator]](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=jasie3k&amp;subject=TweetsInCommentsBot)[^[Source ^code]](https://github.com/janpetryk/reddit-bot)  
They can't fight the government on this. They'll just raise rates & fees on consumers to re-coop the amount.   What's scary is that this is another shift to forcing banks to sell mortgages to the undeserving. Didn't we learn our lesson from the housing market crash? [SEP] >They'll just raise rates & fees on consumers to re-coop the amount.   Then by your beloved free market logic, we the people can take our business elsewhere.  Win win.  
Clapping. It just doesn't make any sense.  [SEP] > Clapping. It just doesn't make any sense.  I got an acute sense of this during a stay in Germany for a scientific conference: instead of clapping at the end of talks, Germans knock on the table.  Which, of course, is no more and no less absurd than clapping, but when you're not used to it, it seems *weird*.  And once I had realized how weird this whole custom was, I found clapping equally weird and for some time I found it hard not to laugh when I heard people clap.
Cleveland is in the process of changing their logo - although the old one is still present, it is being downplayed, and will eventually go away. And people here in the Cleveland area had a shit fit over it, but they will get over it, as they should.   Its not about "money to gain" always. Sometimes companies have to take a long-term approach - a short term loss can equal a long term gain, and keeping those logos will only hurt them in the long term.  [SEP] >people here in the Cleveland area had a shit fit over it  have to say I can't blame them for complaining about the C .. if you're going to have Indians as your team name, then why not have an Indian as your logo... just a more tasteful logo, like the Redskins or Seminoles do
Maybe you should use it to prove that the earth is flat (spheres don't have four corners, duh) and debunk the myth that the earth orbits the sun instead of the way god intended. [SEP] >the myth that the earth orbits the sun instead of the way god intended.  Really, because not only did ancient people know better but the Bible doesn't say that. It was the medieval church who made the wrong *interpretations* of the bible to justify their lack of knowledge...  For a start; http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/425191.html  But I guess you'll equally misinterpret **stories** for your own gain...
As an American that travels extensively, I never had to lie. I have done couchsurfing and homestays. People who casually lie about their nationality disgust me. Maybe lie in a situation when you feel uncomfortable, but consistently lying about it is absurd  [SEP] > casually lie about their nationality disgust me  For someone so extensively traveled, you don't sound very tolerant.  It totally depends on where you are traveling, and what current events are happening at the time.  For the record, my friend was in the US Army and when traveling - not on duty, the Army recommended Canadian patches for their backpacks for safety reasons.
You probably don't want to hear this, but F2P is the future for all MMOs. The only place where this isn't accepted norm is the American market--the Asian market has been doing this for years now (in fact, paid subscription MMOs in the Asian market is now considered taboo). Gone are the days when we would conceitedly suggest that when an American MMO went F2P it meant it was "going down the tubes." It's actually a far more profitable pay model. [SEP] > It's actually a far more profitable pay model.  I remember reading, a year or so ago, that Dungeons and Dragons Online, and Lord of the Rings Online (both made by the same company) became more profitable after they went F2P.  There's just no reason for new MMOs to adopt a subscription model these days.  But companies keep trying because they all think their game is the next WoW and they can grab 10 million subscribers, which will make them all rich so they can drink Bollinger and eat lobster every night.
Ah, proving my point.  You are in the union.  Funny how nobody supports teachers unions but their members.   I look forward to your destruction due to this court case.  Your are an extortionist who holds a public commodity hostage for your own benefit at the expense of children.  Your are contributing to the destruction of faith in government, and further arming the right wing.  The union is you?  That's how cult members think.     [SEP] > Your are contributing to the destruction of faith in government, and further arming the right wing.  Then the onus lies with the Right Wing for being assholes to anyone who wants a functioning government, not with the people who think it can work.  
not to curb your happiness here, but keep in mind that this is more than likely them overshooting and hoping to settle. Same tactic used by feinstein.   edit: I just realized I forgot the court order thing. Shit, tell em not to settle for a damn thing.   Also, taking bets for what percent chicago murder rate drops by next year. Winner gets a nude photo of feinstein.  [SEP] > Winner gets a nude photo of feinstein.  You mean loser?
Treating the symptoms in an effective manner is just as important as patching up the damage. Education and empowering workers is just as important as welfare. It doesn't take a savant to design legislation to make a better future. But the American government only cares about quarterly profits for the corporations it's sponsored by. Look at the subsidies, tax cuts, and 'pet projects' that are financed in lieu of fixing the ills of society. [SEP] > It doesn't take a savant to design legislation to make a better future.   Lol dude, it's not about designing something to make a better future. Design is easy, however, that money has to come from somewhere, and getting the approval for that money is not easy when what you are proposing is some fantasy land where you think education and counselling is going to solve the worlds problems.  Some people LIKE doing drugs and hurting other people.
Lol it's not the same thing at all.  I didn't say all guys are creepy racists, or even some of them. I said it wasn't worth finding out.  You clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman on a dating site.   If I get messaged by someone, look at their profile and see that we aren't compatible, what would you have me do? Respond with "No thanks"?  Ok, let me tell you what happens in that scenario. At least half the time a guy will want to know the reason. You can't even give a vague response like "we just aren't a good fit" because they will demand to know *why*. At this point, whether you respond honestly or completely ignore them, you will most likely get called a bitch, told you're "ugly anyway" or, in the more extreme cases, threatened.  So why bother? I am not interested and not replying conveys that just as easily as having to explain myself, so why would I open myself to possible harassment for the same end result?  [SEP] > I didn't say all guys are creepy racists, or even some of them. I said it wasn't worth finding out.  I know, right? When I say "I don't think it's worth the risk to hang out with aboriginals", I'm not saying they're all drunken thugs. I just mean it isn't worth finding out. It's not that I'm a bigot and hate all natives! I've just had some bad experiences with some of them in the past where they sucker punched me for literally no reason, so now I play things safe and make sure to stay far away from them. I mean really, why bother?
>because you have a voting ring  No because reddit in general is science oriented and likes to debunk anti-science, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.  The other anti-GMO activists don't seem to have a problem with forming coherent enough arguments to keep out of negative karma territory.   For starters, you could stop your stalking, harassing and doxxing attempts  because everyone of those seems to back-fire on you. [SEP] >No because reddit   no, it's because you have a voting ring  remember when i posted that kevin folta quote and your voting ring downvoted it because they didn't know it was your little hero's own quote?  in your fervor to defend science you chose to ignore the latest research. you are as anti-science as climate change deniers
Nah man, I appreciate the novel. This was super fucking awesome for me. Unbiased facts.   So was the Vince Foster guy the weightlifting "suicide" guy that people are always talking about?  Also, since this post was so fucking great, do you mind talking about the recent Hillary scandal? Reddit has been my only source of information about the emails. Apparently she should be in jail, but you're saying Bush lost a similar number? (I didn't like Bush either for the record, that presidency was definitely fucked).   Also, how do I submit this to BestOf? [SEP] > This was super fucking awesome for me. Unbiased facts.  Well, I don't like the way that /u/Raraman phrased it, but he/she/it does have a point: read as much as you can from independent sources and make up your own mind.  It's important to get the best, most accurate sources you can.  I do like wikipedia as a basic starting point even though it's editable by any user because multiple studies have found that for most topics, the biases of the users essentially cancel each other out and most articles are very factual.  Snopes is also another very good resource - they do their investigating and get things right.  > weightlifting "suicide" guy  John Ashe, right?  That's just another example of people going nuts about the Clintons.  It was all made up by one conspiracy theorist and the other ones liked it and spread it around.  This is a good litmus test: if a "news" source reports on this and says that he was killed because he was going to testify against Hillary, then that news source just repeats theories without proof and doesn't bother to do any actual journalism.  Snopes article on John Ashe  > Reddit has been my only source of information about the emails.  If you were born in 1993 and it's 2016, then you're 23.  You need to get your information from places other than reddit.  > Apparently she should be in jail  According to whom?  When she became secretary of state, she had a private server set up and used that for a lot of emails.  The Bush administration had done the same thing with Rice and Powell, and Clinton asked Powell and he said that he had done the same thing.  There's laws about official presidential administration emails and if the official server was used, then all emails had to be preserved.  But there was a problem: SoS used blackberrys for mobile access because of security reasons and the official server wasn't set up/configured correctly.  (I don't remember exactly what the deal was with the server/blackberry thing and if it sounds ridiculous, keep in mind that this was more than 5 years ago and mobile technology has increase at unreal speeds.)  Here's the wikipedia article on what the Bush administration did.  Here's the one on Hillary.  And here's the Snopes list of all article they have about Hillary.  Read the wikipedia articles on Bush and Hillary and compare them to wherever you've been getting your information from.  How reliable and accurate were those news sources?  Then read the snopes list and see what people accuse Hillary of.  Some of it is kind of understandable but some of it is just bat-shit crazy like this one.  
Yeah, I just couldn't believe the way Pettis softly and anticlimactically armbarred him in the center of the octagon in the beginning of the first. I would love to see him against Gunnar Nelson. [SEP] >I would love to see him against Gunnar Nelson.  That would be a sweet match up if he wasn't half booked for Maia
You seem confused by my labelling of you as an insult slinger, Allow me to explain. I will keep the description nice and simple for you. Do you see the words 'moron' and 'tool' directed at me in your post? those are what we in society call 'personal insults'. These were in response to a post of mine (that incidentally was not addressed to you personally) which contained no personal insults. My labelling of you as a troll was in response to a post of yours that did contain personal insults. Perhaps its worth doing some hard thinking as to the reasons why you need this to be explained to you. [SEP] > that incidentally was not addressed to you personally  So you are the type of person that sees someone being verbally attacked and does nothing? Sorry, but I am not.  Second of all, if you actually read my post, I didn't call you are moron or an tool, I said that the way you were acting made you look like one. Even the smartest people in the world can do things to make them look bad. I just love how you are treating me like a spec ed kid when you know nothing of my level of education or my professional status. pretty good for some laughs.
My favorite 'atheist' quote is this:  >If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. ‘Cause that’s all there is. What we do. Now. Today. … All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don’t think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there’s no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  Put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives. For someone who does not believe in any sort of higher power or higher meaning, the most beneficial thing they can do for themselves is to *create meaning of their own*. And because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others.  **Edit**: I am happy to expand on this point if you think it is worth exploring more. [SEP] > Put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.    This is essentially the excellence argument, is it not?
hes a faggot but you insult the dead, whatever. that faggot co-founded the website you are insulting him on [SEP] >  that faggot co-founded the website you are insulting him on  Not really. Reddit was already online. He was the third person brought in and therefore an early contributor, but he also got shit-canned because he wasn't reliable.  
In your opinion, what will the future of electronic privacy and anonymity be? Many if not most politicians are either indifferent or against privacy and anonymity and there is a bill that could be passed in December that would allow the government to hack computers simply for accessing the Internet with TOR if I am correct. How much of an effect do you think increasing mass surveillance will have on fake ID related activities? [SEP] >In your opinion, what will the future of electronic privacy and anonymity be?  I think in general, we're going to see an increasingly private/anonymous internet. As everything becomes connected to the internet, I imagine there will be a great consumer demand to anonymity. In the past, tools like Tor and VPNs were primarily associated with illegal activity by the general public. From what I've seen, that seems to be changing.   Though the lawmakers may try to restrain it, I see it as a cat-and-mouse game that they're not going to win.  >there is a bill that could be passed in December that would allow the government to hack computers simply for accessing the Internet with TOR if I am correct  That's a fairly common misconception. Basically, judges nowadays can only authorize search warrants for their own jurisdictions. As services like Tor conceal the actual jurisdiction, the proposed rule would simply allow a judge to issue a warrant for a computer with a concealed location without having to prove jurisdiction.  >How much of an effect do you think increasing mass surveillance will have on fake ID related activities?  No more than it's having these days. The most likely trigger for a large-scale fake ID crackdown would be a major terrorist attack or a shift in focus toward strengthening US borders.
Instead of LAN, Valve should sell a "tournament license" that includes the rights to lease or outright own your own tournament server.  For those who don't know, this is what Valve did for The International 1&2 and what Blizzard does for their own SC2 events. They have a local tournament server. It's not LAN, but it effectively gives neglibeable ping, since the packets are going into, basically, the next room.  Not all LAN tournaments would probably be able to lease/own such a server, but for big organizations that have sponsorship money on the line and especially those who broadcast on TV (such as G League), this would be a worthwhile investment in content production security.   [SEP] >It's not LAN, but it effectively gives neglibeable ping, since the packets are going into, basically, the next room.  That would be a LAN, a local area network.
Mac OS, Ubuntu and others want you to run 'su' via 'sudo'  Some implementations don't cache your auth, so if you have to run 'sudo post-install actions one and two', it's too many keystrokes.  Also, without pulling root's ENV, you may wind up in csh or ksh, depending.  Balls to that, I say. [SEP] > Mac OS, Ubuntu and others want you to run 'su' via 'sudo'  My point was that Ubuntu want you to use sudo for your super-user stuff. They don't want you to login as root, but to explicitly declare which commands you want to run as super-user using the sudo command. This way you are also reminded that what you are doing is being done by root.
And a thousand crushes on julian began...  Thanks for reminding me it's been a while since I've listened to them. Something terribly bittersweet about listening to them that I can't quite put my finger on [SEP] >Something terribly bittersweet about listening to them that I can't quite put my finger on  So true. I actually only *really* got into them in the past year or so, and this song makes me feel nostalgic even though it's still relatively new to me.  
>a heuristic idea that one should make as few assumptions as possible in a valid theory, and eliminate extraneous pieces from a theory if they are not necessary to explain the relevant phenomena.  But why use this particular heuristic? Why go with the simplest theory and not with, say, the theory that makes you feel the happiest, or the theory that is most socially acceptable? And why is the Occam heuristic lauded rather than being derided as "simplicity bias" in the way that the availability and confirmation biases are? What is the difference between a "heuristic" and a "cognitive bias"? I don't see any.   >Science does not hold firm as faith that the laws of physics are immutable, even though every observation made thus far has suggested it to be so.  It may not be a firmly held belief, but it is assumed to be likely, even though one could just as easily make counter inductive assumptions with no contradiction. Why? And I am not questioning the laws of physics, I am questioning the uniformity of nature, which scientists seem to assume without justification.  >It is not faith precisely because it is open to evidence-based changes.  Could I justifiably and rationally believe that the apocalypse will happen in two days, and act on that belief, as long as I am open to changing my mind two days from now if it didn't happen? You would probably say no, but why not? [SEP] **tl;dr : The laws of physics are not considered immutable, because they are not and we have observed that. They vary with time, speed, and gravity field.**  > But why use this particular heuristic?  Because it works. Other heuristics have been tested, including the one you point out. Making up more comfortable theories is a thing the human mind makes easily, but experience shows that adding things in your system to make yourself more comfortable is likely to add errors to your system.   > What is the difference between a "heuristic" and a "cognitive bias"?  In the heuristic, you are aware that you have a bias. You know that the reality is probably more complex than your model. Yet, when you have done things well, your model will still yield useful predictions, even if it is too simple.  Understand that a heuristic is not a law, it is a good practice. Scientist don't say "this is true because of Occam's razor". And actually, scientists are not content with simplistic models. They constantly complexify their models. The game is usually to have the most complete model, coherent with all data, and using the fewest assumptions.  > It may not be a firmly held belief, but it is assumed to be likely, even though one could just as easily make counter inductive assumptions with no contradiction. Why? And I am not questioning the laws of physics, I am questioning the uniformity of nature, which scientists seem to assume without justification.  This is not assumed at all. Actually we know of some places where the laws of physics are changing : the core of a black hole. When the theory of relativity was formulated, it was actually challenging this assumption : it said that the laws of motions were changing when the speed of the reference frame is getting closer to the speed of light.  We check carefully when laws of physics change. We know several conditions where this is the case, and we complete our theories. Actually, we know that there is a variance in time : we call that the expansion of the universe, but really, this could be interpreted as a change of the way distances work in our universe.  
Actually, it's not unique. There is a worm for which we know entirely how it progresses from single cell zygote to an adult. The cells of the members of its species **always** divide in the same way, and each cell has been named based on its relation to the original zygote. This organism has taught us a lot about embryology.  The name of this organism escapes me at the moment, but I read about it in one of Richard Dawkins' books. *The Greatest Show on Earth*, I think.   Edit: I found the animal. It's a nematode, species name *c. elegans.*  Here's a nice quote from its Wikipedia page:  >The developmental fate of every single somatic cell (959 in the adult hermaphrodite; 1031 in the adult male) has been mapped. These patterns of cell lineage are largely invariant between individuals, whereas in mammals, cell development is more dependent on cellular cues from the embryo. The first cell divisions of early embryogenesis in C. elegansare among the best understood examples of asymmetric cell divisions.  Edit2: Furthermore, there is a name for organisms like this that don't grow by cell division once they reach maturity - they're called eutelic.  [SEP]  >Edit: I found the animal. It's a nematode, species name *c. elegans.*   I wonder if Doug Funnie ever found it.
>we can't trade with them for free right now because of the EU.  What would we trade? We don't exactly have much of a manufacturing industry and most of what we do, the Chinese can do cheaper and in many other parts of the developing world, the Chinese would be our competitors. [SEP] >What would we trade?  Our current single biggest export is nuclear reactors and nuclear reactor parts. I'm quite sure that China of all countries would be very interested in buying some of them. 
Is it weird that I'm most excited to see if they've come up with any good new auto awesome effects? I love my phone popping up with a cool new picture it's created.   My favourite one is when google decided to remove my girlfriend from a photo. I wound her up with that one for days.  [SEP]   > My favourite one is when google decided to remove my girlfriend from a photo  The Google Gods are trying to tell you something
the concept of "unpaid" software interns is insulting. That isn't "proper".. Not in our industry. Anyone that does such is taking advantage of young upcoming engineers that don't know better.  My first internship, I coded 33% of the release for our flagship software, on a team of 3. The other 2 were senior engineers.  8 years later, just had my own intern. First time, junior in college, and no experience in the problem domain. Yet he was able to learn and become a productive member in his 3 month internship (productive meaning he implemented more feature points than I would have in the time I spent training him).  Sure, interns aren't going to be effective in building architectures, requirements elicitation, or otherwise engaging with customers... but any competent programmer (which most compsci/softeng college students will be) can be productive WHILE learning.  Due to the nature of software and the wonders of proper source control, an unpaid software internship is never acceptable. [SEP] > the concept of "unpaid" software interns is insulting. That isn't "proper".. Not in our industry. Anyone that does such is taking advantage of young upcoming engineers that don't know better.  I'm not defending having unpaid interns -- I don't like the idea either and think they should be paid.  But typically a "proper" intern is unpaid. It's not an internship if you're getting paid -- at that point, it's a job.  Companies just use the word internship to appeal to those young upcoming engineers that don't know better.
My daddy died a hero. He was bringing freedom to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Syria! [SEP] >My daddy died a hero  A hero to whom?   Did he somehow protect the innocent Americans from the tyrannical socialists in the Middle East that are just waiting in caves to attack our freedom?
Emergency professionals already deescalate situations, and convince people they need help. I don't think you are going to resolve issues by the roadside of an incident. This takes several sessions with experience professionals. Even if you had a psycologist in an ambulance, they would not be able to resolve an issue by the roadside. It's not like handing them an icepack, or bandaging a wound.   The Gus Deeds example is unfair, because he doesn't even get treatment. I never said that people don't need treatment. Just that they don't need immediate treatment.   For your last point, how to mental health facilities not see people in crisis? They are taking care of people who either have volunteered to get help, or been committed against their will. Even if you volunteer to enter, they can get a TDO for a certain amount of time to make sure that you can't leave until they have a chance to re-evaluate you and clear you.    In the example I presented no one saw any warning signs to get him committed. Besides the fact, they would have had no way to respond fast enough to that incident to prevent him from shooting. And what few warning signs the Isla Campus shooter showed to his parents were not enough to get him committed.  [SEP] > Emergency professionals already deescalate situations, and convince people they need help.  But the problem is they're trained to do so for physical issues, not psychological ones.  > The Gus Deeds example is unfair  Again, I only used that example because you cited Virginia's policy for a timeline on getting help as what's "acceptable." I brought up that case because it brought attention to Virginia politicians that said policy was *broken* and is in process of changing. Politicians are realizing it isn't sound policy and politicians who have to deal with appropriating money tend to be more conservative about spending on mental care resources than what experts in mental health might recommend.
Workers in nearly every country were demanding that, except for Germany! LOL   And get your facts straight. Germany was being outspent on militarization until 1937-1939. England, the U.S. And Soviet Union all spent more than Germany ever did throughout the 30's. Stop lying and start reading, will you? How could Germany build up the military when there were labor shortages in all other aspects of German industry? Germany didn't prepare for war until it became obvious that England, France, and the U.S. Would not stop their belligerent behavior, that's why Germany reunited with its lost territories peacefully before Poland made that impossible.   Most of your stuff comes from the same source, the U.S. government. It's propaganda, and you need to get proper sources.  EVERYTHING you've said is a distortion or a plain lie.   We are talking about Nazi Germany, where the German leaders actually represented the German people, they are one force. Not like England or the U.S. where the people are seperate from the leaders.  [SEP] >Workers in nearly every country were demanding that, except for Germany! LOL  There was actually widespread labor unrest early on in the Nazi's reign.  >And get your facts straight. Germany was being outspent on militarization until 1937-1939. England, the U.S. And Soviet Union all spent more than Germany ever did throughout the 30's.  Also incorrect. Let me pull an excerpt from that...  >How cheap was Germany’s early military success? Germany’s prewar economic preparations were very substantial. Table 1 shows that in the years 1935-9 Germany had procured a volume of combat munitions far greater than any other power, and equal in real terms to the munitions production of all her future adversaries combined. Already in the last “peacetime” year of 1938 Germany’s military expenditures were costing her one-sixth of her national income  >Germany didn't prepare for war until it became obvious that England, France, and the U.S. Would not stop their belligerent behavior  Anschluss of Austria? Munich Agreement? Invasion of Czechoslovakia? Failed attempt to disguise German soldiers as Polish soldiers, and make it seem like the Poles invaded the Germans?   > that's why Germany reunited with its lost territories peacefully before Poland made that impossible.  Austria was never a part of Germany. The Sudetenland was never part of Germany. Germany, deservedly, lost the Danzig corridor to Poland, due to their actions during WWI.  >EVERYTHING you've said is a distortion or a plain lie.  I have provided you numerous scholarly journals, articles, and references to look at. Yet you still stick to this revisionist piece of shit that doesn't even deserve the label of literature.  >We are talking about Nazi Germany, where the German leaders actually represented the German people  Ah, so even the disgusting experiments on Humans that Mengele, among others, performed was done according to the will of the people?  >Not like England or the U.S. where the people are seperate from the leaders.  Totally. Not like they're elected by the people or anything.
Readable versions of charts:   100k income: http://i.imgur.com/lfoZy.png  300k income: http://i.imgur.com/5xlNr.png  Edit: Not so sure how much I trust them, since Denmark is remarkably low despite having some of the highest taxes in the world.  Edit: Oops... only the Social Security is on those charts. [SEP] >Edit: Not so sure how much I trust them, since Denmark is remarkably low despite having some of the highest taxes in the world.  The submitted chart shows combined social security and income tax rate.  The two charts you linked to appear to show only social security rates.
Well they coded up BitcoinXT in what many interpreted as a hostile hardfork attempt on the bitcoin consensus. Imagine if a small group of core developers attempted the same thing with the 21million supply limit? It would ruffle a few feathers.  Given those hostile actions, as well as Mike Hearn's well-known "*Benevolent dictatorship over consensus*" view, I think it's pretty clear why they did not sign. (edit: assuming they were asked, I hope they were)  Which is a shame. Bitcoin works by consensus. We should continue to extend olive branches and handshakes to everyone so bitcoin can progress by consensus and agreement instead of war. [SEP] > if a small group of core developers attempted the same thing with the 21million supply limit? It would ruffle a few feathers.  people would laugh about it, mention it in reddit posts, and that would be it. Take NoXT for example. No one is actually running it either. People who actually run miners don't bother with petty drama as much as people think.
I bought a former police car when I was in college, a blue crown victoria from a city auction. they took all the stickers off but it still had the brush guard on the front and a spotlight. During my spring semester at school (3 months) I got pulled over 18 times and had my apartment searched by a sergeant and 3 cops.They never found anything because there was nothing to find but goddamn did they try. I finally hired an attorney to draft a letter and I started collecting names, dates, and incidents. Every single time they pulled me over they would have a bullshit excuse like the one time when a cop pulled me over from behind I asked him a million times why he pulled me over and he walked around the car and said it was because I was missing my front license plate. That was true but he never saw the front of my car until after I asked. That year the police did a great job of turning a good citizen into a citizen who has zero respect for police. Respect for the law yes, but zero for the police.  [SEP] I'm the first to love a good anti-cop circle jerk, but 18 TIMES in 3 MONTHS?  That is 6 times a month, or more than once a week.  that sounds suspicious, there must be more to this story...I don't see how the car you bought factors in to the rest of your story...  > I finally hired an attorney to draft a letter and I started collecting names, dates, and incidents. what came of this?  What caused it to stop after 3 months?  How did they get a search warrant for your apartment - what was the written justification that a judge signed off on?
Can you recommend a good beginner's guide to energy commodities trading? Upstream/downstream and how price changes affect both always confused me. [SEP] I'm not sure.  I suppose you'd have to expand what you mean by 'beginners'?  I think if you read how a refinery processes crude oil, you'll learn a lot.  Wikipedia is actually really good for this;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_spread  >Upstream/downstream and how price changes affect both always confused me.  I don't actually know what you mean?  Price setting is a function of the futures market.  Actual contract price is usually based off of exchange prices in an EFP (exchange for physicals) or is simply notated as such.  For example I might price a deal at $1.50 less than the 3 day average taken at noon from Platts for RON-95.  
>“Under Stephen Harper, there were so many people unhappy with the government and their approach that people were saying, ‘It will take electoral reform to no longer have a government we don’t like’. But under the current system, they now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling,” he said.  Another entire article written based on a likely incorrect interpretation of this single quote. It sounds to me like he merely made an observation that the general public isn't clamoring for electoral reform as much as they were during the election campaign because they aren't as unhappy with the government. It in no way clearly implies that he intends to abandon the consultations and processes that are already under way.  It's really fortunate for all these journalists that he didn't clarify his position on the matter yet so they can continue writing articles based on manufactured outrage. [SEP] > Another entire article written based on a likely incorrect interpretation of this single quote. It sounds to me like he merely made an observation that the general public isn't clamoring for electoral reform as much as they were during the election campaign because they aren't as unhappy with the government  So you think erudite Justin was just making an academic observation? Just speculating with some journalists? I highly doubt it. There was a reason he made that argument.
You only started maining Kha'Zix in season 5, and first played him in season 4, something you admitted to.  Kha'Zix was released in season 2, and you have zero Kha'Zix games registered on him before season 4. Not only that, you only have six ranked games as him in season 4.  Please, stop lying when it's so easy to look up the truth. You haven't one tricked Kha'Zix since he was released, you started in season 5. So, no, you don't know what you're talking about. You're a troll that constantly lies to feed your giant ego, who's currently being boosted by an actual Kha'Zix player. [SEP] >You only started maining Kha'Zix in season 5, and first played him in season 4, something you admitted to.  I went to OCE server in season 4.
Why? Do they somehow not count as shootings? Are people accidentally shot with something that is not a gun? Do gun suicides not involve guns? Why would you do that unless you're trying to misrepresent he facts and lie to people in order to push an agenda? [SEP] > Why?  I think that when we discuss how to prevent violence, how to prevent suicide and how to prevent homicides are very different conversations.   >Why would you do that unless you're trying to misrepresent he facts and lie to people in order to push an agenda?  Quite the opposite. I am a pro-gun rights person, but I'd like clean data to discuss it with. If you are trying to suggest that presenting statistics that show your position in the best light is somehow peculiar to one or the other side of this debate, I think you are mistaken. It irks me that the numbers often are padded on both sides, the result of studies most often reflecting the preconceptions who funded them.   If we're going to discuss guns in America, we need to do so as transparently as possible. The numbers in this don't tell the whole story. If the number of homicides is going down and the number of deaths is remaining constant, then the number of suicides and accidents would appear to be on the rise. What would prevent the first would not necessarily prevent the second two and vice versa. 
When it comes to the Non-Catholics the issue of hypocrisy comes front and center on this issue.  If they are of the Protestants who insist the Bible is literal and inerrant they should practice what it unequivocally declares, and not have women priests.  The Bible couldn't be more plain that women are to "remain silent" at church.  If they want to disregard those scriptures they need to be very careful about insisting the Bible's injunctions are literal for anyone else.  It is the Lord Himself who told us that if we apply any part of the law to another we must keep all of it ourselves.   We can't pick and choose.  Either it is literal for everybody, or it's not literal. [SEP] > The Bible couldn't be more plain that women are to "remain silent" at church  Some literalists do require that in their churches, but lots of Protestants either aren't literalists or realize that that letter was written to a specific congregation that was specifically having issues with a bunch of new female recruits who hadn't had a lot of study time yet.
>  Is there a legitimate reason to own a semi-auto rifle?   Who defines this? I think it's legitimate if you want to own one. Do you require a reason beyond that?  Is there a legitimate reason to own a Ferrari? It can drive much faster than you need to on any highways and costs lots of money. Who could possibly need that?  [SEP] > Is there a legitimate reason to own a semi-auto rifle?   Most people who are in favor of the right to own guns would probably say: "Yeah, that's called the 2nd Amendment to the constitution."  But it also comes down to what people would consider "legit". Do you think self-defense (from people or wild animals) is a legitimate use for guns? How about hunting deer, where you might need to get a quick follow-up shot when you miss your first shot? Timed target shooting competitions?
 Well that's an issue for me, I have a small data cap on my internet and my ping is god awful so I don't ever play multiplayer on any game.  If the Singleplayer is still downloading why did it allow me to select Singleplayer first and download the 10GB that allowed me to start playing? [SEP] > If the Singleplayer is still downloading why did it allow me to select Singleplayer first and download the 10GB that allowed me to start playing?   It's a "feature". The game downloads in sections, so you can play the first part without needing to download the entire thing
What did his parents do? They fled from a war zone so you feel disgust for them?  [SEP] > They fled from a war zone so you feel disgust for them?  First, there's nothing in this picture to indicate his origin. Second Turkey is taking Syrian refugees in, why did they go over water? Third, yes I feel contempt for any parent who would put their child in harm irresponsibly. 
I just don't think anyone should need to learn new phrases and be scolded for using historical terms for things. I believe in free speech, free love, et cetra. It's not a complicated issue. It's people who choose to be offended by shit and want everyone else to change things to appease them. It's all very simple and childish.  You should be able to say whatever you want without consequence. So should I. If I don't like what you're saying, then I need to deal with it - not demand everyone change to protect my feelings from whatever I consider to be dirty wordies. [SEP] > You should be able to say whatever you want without consequence.   Legally?  Sure.  You have every legal right to be an asshole.  But if you make your legal right to be an asshole the centerpiece of your interactions with others, people will avoid you.  Then whining about "political correctness" only adds being pathetic to being obnoxious.  
It isn't charity if they are working for you.  This is such an American attitude to have. [SEP] > It isn't charity if they are working for you.  Which is why he pays them.....
No, you're thinking of the extremist prisoners who Assad knowingly released from jail as the protests escalated.  In the months up to October 2011 Assad released prisoners as part of an amnesty deal for protestors and that the project was overseen by the General Security Directorate, who simultaneously began releasing extremists from prison along with the jailed protestors in order to support the regime's claim that the regime's murderous approach to the protests was necessary to crush an islamist uprising.  *Then* the US started moving arms to Syria from Libya through 2012, while the Gulf states and Turkey began pushing their own regional proxies. Ex-Baathists from Iraq began to move over the border in this following period as well.  [SEP] > No, you're thinking of the extremist prisoners who Assad knowingly released from jail as the protests escalated.  You mean the "political prisoners" that the protesters demanded be released?
Favorite author. Oryx and Crake was only OK though...  To this day, Atwood refuses to call it science fiction. It's "speculative fiction". What a snob :P [SEP] >Atwood refuses to call it science fiction  Most of the technology in the book should be perfectly attainable within 50 years, given there is a demand to develop it. Do you have any specific objections to that? PETA set the deadline to encourage the idea in investors and researchers minds and it will take time to develop it - but it's not far off at all. If the idea of synthetic meat is that fantastical to us, then we have pretty meager imaginations and foresight ability.
And repressive hypnosis brings up represed memories you dumb ass it'd hurt these supposed child molesters fucking idiot [SEP] >And repressive hypnosis brings up represed memories   yes, it does, but nowhere did anyone say any of those memories have to be things that actually happened. you could remember a dream or a nightmare with such a thing done.   >you dumb ass it'd hurt these supposed child molesters fucking idiot  are you sure you actually want people to confront you on your "hypothesis?" cuz this kind of thought coming from someone being confronted is indicative of then not wanting to be confronted.
Sorry for length I'm mostly just venting here.  Wow you sure are dedicated, and so very nice to all those cats. Glad to hear you could get some adopted out. You sound like you have a solid plan with how you care for your cat colony. Do you find yourself spending a lot of time with them (do you play with them?), or do you just go out to leave food for them? Do any of them ever get in fights or have it out for each other when you add a new cat to your colony? It sounds like you've got a support system in your neighborhood for cats.   I used to spend 2-3 hours a day outside with my 2 outdoor cats (1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the morning/hang out with them/do yard work, 1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the evening/hang out with them) and it kinda felt like a burden, but now with the new kitten I'm spending 4 hrs/day outside (2 hrs each feeding) trying to keep up the kitten's socialization with people, and trying to get the adult cats to like him (which is not working...). This is stressing me out.   Previously, with another kitten I had sent to the SPCA a couple months ago..I was spending 6 hrs/day outside with it, for 4 days, to socialize it before bringing it to the shelter...thinking I was improving it's chances of getting adopted...that was before I did any research about the SPCA/cat shelters...but I get what you mean about the SPCA. It's more of a stray holding/euthanasia center than an animal shelter...yet, it's like one of those necessary but unpleasant things for an unfair situation. It's not really the SPCA's fault...it's more of casual breeders' faults for failing to require spay/neuter/microchip. For a population of 1 million people, the SPCA in Fresno is the only place that "takes in" stray cats...that just boggles my mind how there is only 1 open intake 'shelter' for *cats* in all of Fresno...  Anyway, I don't talk to my neighbors (1 of them rents - so no animals, the other only tolerates my outdoor cats trespassing/pooping in their yard in exchange for catching their tree rats), and I don't have friends...but I put up some Found/Free cat flyers and FB posts...but this kitten...it's a very common looking and uninteresting gray tabby, so it's not pretty or eye-catching and I haven't gotten any calls. TBH the only reason why I approached it was because I thought it was mine (it looks like a smaller copy of one of my outdoor cats)...if I hadn't thought it was mine, I would've chased it away...but then I petted it, thinking it was mine and realizing it was not, and it started following me and layering on it's neediness...it was so pathetic looking...  Last night, I was outside for about 2 hours during their evening feeding and during that time my adult cats attacked/stalked him 3 different times (there were loud screams, biting/batting, and high pitched whining)...and again this morning the territorial adult cat attacked him again and bit him. I try to get between them when I can but it's hard to deter fighting between outdoor cats :( I can't do that cat introduction thing since they're all outdoor cats...the house I live in is not mine, so I can't bring animals inside either. This kitten definitely sounds like he is an indoor/house cat and belongs indoors though. Despite getting attacked multiple times he'll still approach the mean cat if I'm near...he's just so stupid! Whenever I go outside and he's sleeping, he doesn't hear me unless I make a louder noise...that is not a good trait for an outdoor cat to have. The only good thing though, is that he sometimes sleeps on a space I made for him on top of my anti-raccoon cat feeder, so at least the raccoons/possums can't get to him at night if he sleeps there.  The kitten is okay with people though and will follow me closely to where I have to watch where I step, so I believe he was raised by people... I can put cat clothes on him, handle his paws/feet, rub his belly, have him fall asleep on my arm, and he hasn't nipped at me yet for handling him willy nilly...he doesn't like to be held/picked up though.   I think my biggest issue is that I'm just not equipped to foster cats to rehome them since I can't bring them indoors, and I get the feeling most people don't want to adopt cats/kittens that come straight from the outdoors because they're dirty/germy and probably a little wild/untrained from the outdoor experience. My 2 adult outdoor cats- their paw pads are always dirty but they generally look clean because they clean each other...but this new kitten...you can just tell he's dirty since he can't lick his head/ears himself. If my adult cats are going keep harassing him they'll just add more scratches to his body...man...ugh. Sorry for this rant and for whining at you. I just needed to vent...  I think...if I can't get my adult cats to get along with him without attacking him or if no one adopts him, I'll probably just neuter him and let him go in the neighborhood somewhere. But the thing is...he isn't feral? It's not quite like TNR? Because this dude was pretty obviously someone's indoor cat and relies on people for food and shelter. Anyway thanks for listening. [SEP] >Do you find yourself spending a lot of time with them (do you play with them?), or do you just go out to leave food for them? Do any of them ever get in fights or have it out for each other when you add a new cat to your colony?   I cuddle and play w/ my indoor cats all day (the 16). Some are more on their own and prefer to cuddle another kitty while others just want to be near me non stop. The "colony" is a group of outdoor cats that stay out there.   For the most part, everyone in both places get along OK. Sometime someone plays too rough but the only real issue I have is w/ 2 of my inside girls, penny and Luna. Penny has decided in the last year that it is her life goal to make Luna as terrified as possible. She'd rather sit in her own filth under the couch than come out. We are working on getting them to get along better but it's a slow process. Things have greatly improved since they started though.   The inside cats get fed twice a day, they all have their own bowls and everything. The outside cats get their bowls filled 2-3 times a day and they just eat when they want. Killer and Two-face love lap cuddles, Tom/Bob is iffy of us but will allowed to be pet on occasion he hangs out down the street more than our yard, Mr bill is a spaz and likes his belly rubbed.  >I used to spend 2-3 hours a day outside with my 2 outdoor cats (1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the morning/hang out with them/do yard work, 1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the evening/hang out with them) and it kinda felt like a burden, but now with the new kitten I'm spending 4 hrs/day outside (2 hrs each feeding) trying to keep up the kitten's socialization with people, and trying to get the adult cats to like him (which is not working...). This is stressing me out.   Two-face use to greet me when I pulled up in my truck. She's our little porch protector and keeps the boys in check and any new girls from coming around. The outsides mostly get attention if i'm out doing yard work or having a cigarette.   Kitten socialization is hard, especially in an outdoor setting. I understand not being able to bring him in b/c you rent, but honestly, I've broken that rule soooo many times. Even just having him for a week or two in your bathroom shouldn't get you in trouble unless your landlord shows up on surprise. As for neutering him, just explain he's an outdoor cat. Places actually charge more for ferals so if he can be handled in general, you're good.  Sorry to cut things short, currently waiting at Manchester for my bus w/ about 100lbs of cat litter in my wheely cart. If you ever wanna send me a pm, feel free to. I probably have some other tips/tricks/resources that may help :) 
But you would need to change trains to go on to philly, and since these trains won't serve Penn Station, there goes all your time savings.  I don't understand why conventional high-speed rail got ignored so quickly.  So much cheaper to simply improve the existing infrastructure.   [SEP] > I don't understand why conventional high-speed rail got ignored so quickly  Obama was for it, so the Republican Governors at the time were against it. California's still going ahead with their high speed rail, for what its worth.
Goodbye and good riddance to Thunderbolt, the newest in a long line of failed interfaces that Apple--and only Apple--hitched their wagon to.  That's not saying that Thunderbolt is bad; it's not. But an interface is only as good as its ubiquity, which drives down price. Unless you can get everyone to pile on, any tech is really not worth it.  [SEP] >the newest in a long line of failed interfaces that Apple--and only Apple--hitched their wagon to.  Like, say, USB? Or wifi? Firewire? Being designed for high end video work, Firewire was a niche but certainly not a failure. DisplayPort hasn't done so well so far but that will likely change after both Intel and AMD stop building products with low-voltage differential signalling this year. That will spell the end of VGA.  Any I've missed?
The real reason was self preservation and profits for the military-industrial complex. War is good business, cold war is only good business if there is a possible enemy.  But the real fear was ideology. If you are part of the American elite, the idea of the working class getting ideas from the Sovietunion would scare you shitless. magine if there had been a leader of the workers like MLK was for blacks? Mass riots and civil war could have happened over who is on power. So better stop the ideology at the borders... [SEP] > If you are part of the American elite, the idea of the working class getting ideas from the Sovietunion would scare you shitless.  If anything, the idea of the working class getting ideas from the Soviet Union would help the elite sleep well at night, given that it's the same country in which The Grapes of Wrath was pulled from theaters (despite featuring heavy criticism of capitalism!) *because Soviet audiences noticed that even the poor Americans had cars*.  The living conditions experienced by the proletariat under the Soviet Union did more than wild, misguided Red Scare era policies ever could to sour the West on communism. All the Cold War-era anti-red propaganda did was reinforce (for good and bad) the deep-seated mistrust of most things associated with it in the US. The Soviet Union did everything necessary to torpedo the idea of ever transitioning to a functioning communist society in the first place by providing a real-world example of just how such an attempt can end up with the proletariat living far worse lives than they would have under the capitalist societies of the time.  (I'm aware that the Soviet Union was a far cry from a Real Communist Society (tm) and that it was in many respects authoritarian diet-socialism, but "well we tried it and didn't manage to get there also it was a horrible disaster" isn't gonna win many people over and instead of disclaimering every mention of communism I'm just putting this at the bottom)
Guys, listen up. This is important.  When you're posting fights, *please* specify whether or not the character is jobbing/OOC. Otherwise, if we do a Flash vs Superman debate, people are gonna be all "Flash drops him in the speedforce dimension and vibrates his testicles 13 trillion times the speed of light before IMPing him into sub-atomic particles". Come on. It's just like saying Superman vs Hulk (example) and commenting "Superman speedblitzes Hulk and throws him into a black hole".   It's ridiculous. If you want those kind of things being said, then specify in the OP that they're bloodlusted. Sentry loses a lot of his fights because he's holding back a lot. As does Iceman. That should carry over to here *unless* you're specifying otherwise.   Oh, and one more thing (unrelated). Lifting strength =/= punching strength. Batman is stronger than an unarmored Master Chief in bench pressing, but keep in mind that when Master Chief is punching, he's aiming for the groin, throat, kidneys, and other potentially lethal locations. Batman doesn't do that kind of thing, so who punches harder? Another thing to consider is the fighting style they use and if they actually *know how to punch well*. Of course, the MC/Bats debate is just an example, and I'm not about to get into another one of those, but my point stands. [SEP] > for the groin, throat, kidneys, and other potentially lethal locations. Batman doesn't do that kind of thing  He does aim for those places when he needs to actually. He just knows he is good enough tp keep it from being lethal.
Yeah, he s really good at the game. But definitely competing against enemys who are way lower skill level wise. Not even hitting him or shooting back or in Eco or fully flashed.      [SEP] >Not even hitting him or shooting back   you were not kidding, i had to wait for 47 seconds until he showed a kill where someone fired a bullet in his general direction.
> Unfortunately, the only examples of functional anarchy history has provided us are left-libertarian.   Must I repeat;  > Libertarian anywhere else refers to the anarchists of Europe in the early 1900's, ie. 'left libertarians'.  Also;  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics > Leftist economic beliefs range from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy and the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning  American Libertarians are not anarchists and you've avoided the question.  > there was also no profit motive = no capitalism.  This isn't possible with functional human beings.  Sex, relationships, proving a point, survival, etc -- there is always profit.  Otherwise the study of human behaviour is void and many great INTP's are completely wrong.  I suggest you take the actual MBTI. [SEP] Does pretending what you say is true usually win arguments for you?  Because that's the only way I can figure that:  >American Libertarians are not anarchists and you've avoided the question.  makes any sense.  Lots of American Libertarians are anarchists.  The most prominent American Libertarians are anarchists.  Freedman was a AnCap, and Chomsky is an AnSoc, just to name two.  >This isn't possible with functional human beings.   This is your belief based, I'm assuming, on a narrow interpretation of syntax.  It's not a meaningful statement, let alone an objective truth.
They might have started it, but the idea was after they used it in 2010 the Tea Party would go back into it's little box.  The problem was they fell of the tiger and it ran around destroying everything in it's vicinity.  Anyone currently under the "Tea Party" banner is definitely not taking orders from the Kotch bros any more. [SEP] > Anyone currently under the "Tea Party" banner is definitely not taking orders from the Kotch bros any more.  I see no evidence of that
My few observations -   1. iPhone is not perfect in every aspect of a smartphone, but it is well rounded. It has excellent design, good camera(not best), good battery life(not best), good looks(not best) but it is consistently good in all areas.   2. The software experience doesn't change from version to version. Many elderly people are suckers for this, they don't like change and like to have the same experience with minor tweaks here and there. Don't believe me, just Google Windows 8.X and the number of people bitching about it .. just coz they didn't want to learn something new.  3. Apps don't crash as often as on Android (honest truth, I like Android apps but they do crash more than iOS). The software experience feels a bit more polished  4. Applecare and resale value. Heck, if you buy a Mac or iPhone you can sell it for a decent price after a year's use. Android phones have no chance there. Applecare is also expensive but many suckers out there who trust Apple with their money and Apple doesn't disappoint them. They provide good service.  5. Brand value and Hype. Apple can get non-technical people into the loop unlike Microsoft or Google.Word of mouth is/was strong. Esp. in the US.    [SEP] > The software experience doesn't change from version to version. Many elderly people are suckers for this, they don't like change and like to have the same experience with minor tweaks here and there. Don't believe me, just Google Windows 8.X and the number of people bitching about it .. just coz they didn't want to learn something new.  My dad has a Moto G (2014).  I thought he was going to die when it updated to Lollipop.  I'm hoping now that the phone never gets the next major update(as far as UI changes, Marshmallow will be fine).    
I never understood the argument that high taxes on high income prevent those people from working. I think the focus changes from hoarding money to building your business. If you keep reinvesting the money then you avoid the high taxes but still build wealth.  Right now, our economy is stagnant because too much money is being hoarded so increasing taxes on the people/corporations that are sitting on it makes sense. Those people have already benefited from a prolonged period of low taxes and we are not any better a country for it. [SEP] > If you keep reinvesting the money then you avoid the high taxes but still build wealth.  I'm making all of the money that is practical given the current tax rates. I should invest in my business so that I earn ... more? Wait a second, there's no reason to do that. I'll just move my company or money somewhere else.
An addition to the 'tell us' line, an observation to make is that it is very rare for a guy to give a negative reaction to the attentions of a woman. At worst, it will be a 'not interested', and then at least you know.   Often guys aren't as oblivious as many of us make out, they just know that, short of outright saying it, anything else that women might tend to consider as 'signals', can always be misread easily. One woman's just being friendly is another woman's signal of interest, and men usually have to deal with much stronger negative repercussions as the result of misreading these signals.  Edit: Well scupper me sideways, all that karma and reddit gold! :) Merci beaucoup! [SEP] > and men usually have to deal with much stronger negative repercussions as the result of misreading these signals.  Yep, I lost half of a circle of friends due to misreading signals. It started at a party, and then quickly blew up on Facebook.  To hell with hivemind women.
Spurs in 4. A red-hot Manu Ginobili, disappointing Chris Bosh, and defensively dominant Kawhi Leonard will all contribute to a San Antonio sweep, in four closely contested games that all go to overtime.  [SEP] >all go to overtime.  I like this added oomph. 
Are you kidding me? We know what hydrogen can do chemically. It can't do anything sufficiently complex to give us biological life.   Is this really controversial? I thought atheists were supposed to have multiple science Ph.D's?  [SEP] > We know what hydrogen can do chemically.  Only in *this* universe. If we are talking about changing the way the universe works, why would chemistry work the same way?
Yes, she has tweeted that sadly. I do believe a man and a MTT help with FemFreq. She might also not want more harassment after getting death threats every single day from angry men because she makes critical videos about video games. Calling prostituted women in games exactly that instead of "sex workers" has given her a lot of shit too. I support her and her videos. This one shows exactly how fucking ugly male opinions on women are, when they can create their own fantasy world without even hiring real actors.  Making the psychologist's breasts bounce when she spoke about the main character's trauma was just... [SEP] > Calling prostituted women in games exactly that instead of "sex workers" has given her a lot of shit too.   God, this amazes me. There's a poor, abused, woman in a video game, whose representation is controlled entirely by men, who has sex for her very survival?  SEX WORK IS WORK!!!
Shhhhhh don't expose the hypocrisy that fills this subreddit. [SEP] >don't expose the hypocrisy  I don't think that word means what you think it means. ;P
It's so silly that we can't map keys to other things, WoW, SC2, each let you revamp your keys. Hell I bet you can in heroes too.  But, we won't get it, and I bet it's because of consoles.  [SEP] > and I bet it's because of consoles.   What makes you say that, though? Console players ask for variable button mapping as much, if not more than, PC users. The excuse developers give (and that includes what Blizzard seems to imply from their design strategy) is that being allowed to custom map your controls allows for unfair advantages over players that don't use custom mapping.  i.e. in Diablo you are effectively forced into mapping only a broad aim skill, or a generator, into the mouse's left click (and arguably right click). Running Cluster Arrow on left click is downright ineffective, as you're stuck either clicking on a target to use the skill, or using Force Stand Still to fire (making you immobile).  However, I always said that if you make a game where button placement can give someone "unfair" advantages, then that's a flaw in your game design. Being limited by physical button placement is a lazy way of increasing difficulty.     
In general without going into much detail: his advocacy for privatizing traditional state programs such as prisons and education, annulling the CBA rights of public employees, decreasing taxes on the wealthy, implementing incredibly strict and austere welfare reform, pushing for harsher sentencing laws, and -in the grand scheme- his most basic underlying assumptions about government.  [SEP] > pushing for harsher sentencing laws  I'm not seeing that here
Dont lie. You're just mad that they read your bible and the truth hurts that its all trash. [SEP] I dont even get it, are you trolling?  >You're just mad that they read your bible and the truth hurts that its all trash.  Wat, im god dammed Areligious.
I do not like the patriots. In fact, I would go as far as to say I hate that team.   That being said, I felt this whole ordeal was so dumb. I'm not really sure how they claim to regulate something that changes with temperature and that they don't even thoroughly document in the first place.   [SEP] > I'm not really sure how they claim to regulate something that changes with temperature and that they don't even thoroughly document in the first place.  The pressure of the footballs must not be that important. I mean they let them bring their own footballs after all. 
Basically, it's saying we should stop acting like the sight of boob is such a huge thing, or that posting yours online is 'immoral'. Yeah, some of us find them sexy. That doesn't mean we get to harass or slutshame women who show them, nor does that make it 'immoral' to 'show too much boob'. They're just boobs. We, as a society, have GOT to stop thinking with our genitals all the time. We are fully capable of seeing a pair of breasts without slutshaming, making moral judgements, or leering. Boobs can be nice and pretty and soft and life giving to infants - but they're just boobs. No big deal. [SEP] > That doesn't mean we get to harass or slutshame women who show them, nor does that make it 'immoral' to 'show too much boob'. They're just boobs.   I agree with you as far as pragmatics go, but this point, or extended arguments about boobs not being sexual, are too narrow.   People exist in contexts that apply based on some set of criteria. The overall cultural contexts is the union of this. Consider shorts, for example, so that the knees of the wearer are visible. This is perfectly normal where I live. But in the context of Christian Orthodox churches, it is not. Deliberately wearing shorts in an Orthodox church isn't semantically void. By subverting the traditions and rules that inform the context, one makes a statement of sorts, and the rules of this context are enforced. I know this because I was escorted of the premises one summer when I stumbled into an Orthodox church wearing shorts and a T-shirt, ignorant of the context I had just moved into.  Sitting is similarly normal, but a statement in the context of civil disobedience.   I'm sure I don't have to explain this in detail, as this idea is a staple of post-modern approaches to societal structures (and thereby feminism, which is why I don't understand that this is never acknowledged).  Back to the boobs. No matter how normal, in our culture deliberate freeboobery is a statement in any context that prohibits it, and *slutshaming* is a particular way of trying to enforce the rules of this context. Freeboobery is only prohibited in some contexts, by the way. There is no problem in nudist areas, saunas, or (where I live) public pools, for example.  If a woman deliberately bares her breasts in an attempt to change our cultural context so that freeboobery is acceptable, slutshaming is a non-sequitur of course, but she makes a statement anyway, that is to say, boobs are not *just* boobs, they are boobs in a context.   As long as this is not acknowledged I don't think productive widespread discussion will emerge.
Dota 2 is bringing new meaning to "Valve time". The rate of progress just to get the full DotA roster ported, let alone introduce anything genuinely new, is kindof ridiculous. [SEP] How? The valve time got introduced with half life 2. And we are still waiting on episode 3. Yet alone HL3.  > let alone introduce anything genuinely new  We just got a new engine and a new client. LoL players still have no replays. Valve time does exist, but not in dota.
How long until they start selling "distressed" gis with torn lapels and faded pits? [SEP] > How long until they start selling "distressed" gis with torn lapels and faded pits?  You can buy my designer distressed gis. Special low price of just $400, my fren.
As much as I don't like Peter Thiel, leading this story with his sexuality as though that somehow explains or compounds his actions is just plain wrong.  Some republicans / Trump supporters are gay .. as contradictory as that sounds. [SEP] >Some republicans / Trump supporters are gay  Not anymore.
 Rally advice  Hi,   Congrats on heading to a TRUMP RALLY! It will be one of the greatest days of your life (the best day). BUT your experience depends on what YOU want to put into it.   I was  FIRST at the Costa Mesa (Day before he beat Lyin' Ted), Anahiem (day before he hit 1237) and San Diego (day after he hit 1237)  The best part of the rally isn't Trump speaking, it's actually spending the day with Trump Supporters! That's the biggest reason to get there early. Bc the rest of the first people around you will also be super centipedes!  Trump is Bonus!  Here are my signed treasures and a goofy video I made of my 1st Trump Rally. The second rally I got 2 hats signed and the God-Emperor himself graced me with a shake and told me, "You're doing a damn fine job!" and the 3rd I got my 1934a $500 bill signed! Truly incredible! That is why I want to share this info with you!   https://sli.mg/MF9BxM  http://youtu.be/lfmqGFS-U7s  Anyway, I may already be way too high energy for your plans, but if not... Read on!  General advice is get there right before sunrise, however, since your rally is at 8pm. I think you can arrive at 8-9am to be in very front. If you arrive at 10am, you can probably make your way to the front eventually, with some effort and hustle ( bc there are multiple "checkpoints" you go through, as I explain later.)   Don't listen to the guy that said one or two hours. Check out the line in my video. In my second and third rally's, almost everyone in the front were people who missed the first rally bc they showed up late. Some even 5 hrs early and missed it. Again, check that fucking line out! THAT is when the stadium was already full.   As far as standing in line, everyone will be so friendly, and you will form a bond, you will be able to leave the line at anytime and come back. Going to the bathroom is no problem, they'll save your spot (bc you'll be saving theirs!).   As far as bags, two rallies let me have my backpack, the third didn't, so be careful if you do bring it. I definitely brought snacks and water and even ordered a few pizzas for my new friends. Like I said, no big deal if you get up to grab them.   Go to the bathroom before you enter the final hall, bc you will not want to move from your spot. You will likely stand outside and then go to another waiting area inside and then wait there til 6:30 or 7 and then you will go through metal detectors to enter the TRUMP RALLY AREA. RUN! RUN! Run to the best spot! Out run the grannies you made friends with all day long, run for yourself and your experience! Now your focus is on enjoying the rally and getting that special signature!   Trump always walks around the half circle in front of the stage and signs gear. He will have his own sharpie so don't bring one. Also, BRING SOMETHING MAGA to get signed. If you bring a hat or a trump book or something "special" like that, he WILL sign it. The secret service is often annoyed at how slow he goes signing things. He even reaches back to sign things as the Secret service is pushing him along.   Have fun! [SEP] > https://sli.mg/MF9BxM  #IMPRESSIVE
depending on what you mean over 50% of the post on this sub reddit could be considered bro science. But let's use common sense and logic to figure this out. If you are hungry and you wait longer technically you would be more hungry right? Than why is it when you go to bed hungry, you wake up not feeling as hungry at all. This is because your body was never hungry in the first place.  [SEP] > Than why is it when you go to bed hungry, you wake up not feeling as hungry at all. This is because your body was never hungry in the first place.    Wrong.    Hunger and appetite are very complex and we aren't even close to fully understanding it.    One reason - your body produces hormones in different amounts when you sleep. Much different than awake. Sleep is a completely different physiological state.   For one example leptin levels increase with sleep. It is a complex system though.   Plus your kidneys and liver do a great job of detoxing by themselves all the time. 
It will certainly change attitude. If your principal had a problem with your teaching in the past you could ignore them. Now you've got to listen. [SEP] > If your principal had a problem with your teaching in the past you could ignore them.   False. If you ignore your principal, he can document your behavior and get you fired, regardless of tenure, regardless of union representation. In fact, when a principal goes through those steps, and demonstrates a teacher's incompetence, a union is more likely to not pursue a defense. A union isn't like a public defender's office. A union doesn't blindly defend all of its members regardless of their behavior.
Okay. There are several factors that affect a football player: resistance, musculature, and intelligence, for example. For LoL players, there is only one factor: intelligence (which affects reaction time and game analysis). Thus, if a football player is not very intelligent, it can compensate it with its physique; if, in the other hand, a LoL player is not smart, he simply goes nowhere. [SEP] > For LoL players, there is only one factor: intelligence  That's just wrong, there's not much else to say. Reaction time, work ethic, team communication skills, mental fortitude, competitive spirit, etc etc are all integral to winning... no idea how you can claim some generic "intelligence" factor to be the sole decider.  You don't need to be a genius to be good at LoL.
It's called New Amsterdam Fencing Academy and it's primary appeal is that it is close.  It's the only way I get things in.  I dont think there is a Houstonian alive that would believe you did that commute by Metro.  Wow.  I could be in a helicopter and every time I go see my godsons out there (off Spring Cypress) it feels like I'm going to Oklahoma.  Beautiful campus though.  Did you enjoy the school? [SEP] > It's the only way I get things in.  hehehe…  Yeah, did enjoy it. I was a philosophy major. Good thing I got into med school because otherwise I would be incredibly screwed.
>White people get shot by the police, so the idea that only black people get short is demonstrable incorrect. The assertion that white people don't get shot for misbehaving is demonstrable incorrect.  Who is making this claim?   >The biggest problem however is that you're only looking at the raw statistics of the outcome, not at the behavior. Saying black people are killed by the police at a rate three times higher means absolutely nothing without taking into account the behavior of the groups in question.  Where is your evidence that looks at behavior?  >Hooligans are much more likely to be than nuns; that doesn't mean that there is discrimination against hooligans, it means that certain behavior leads to police action.  Ahh yes. The blacks that get shot are hooligans. I'm done here.  [SEP] > Ahh yes. The blacks that get shot are hooligans. I'm done here.  I'm not surprised you play this game to get out of it. A bit sad, but ok. See ya.
but with Jenny they bigged her up so much at the end of the episode with her saying shes going to have a lot of exciting adventures and what would be the point of bringing her back to life and saying all that just for her to never come back [SEP] > they bigged her up so much at the end of the episode with her saying shes going to have a lot of exciting adventures  And no story they could tell can possibly live up to your imagination of what happened to her next.  That was kind of the point.  Enjoy your head-canon Jenny adventures.  That's all there will ever be.
I guess that's our difference, I don't beleive hipster is a definable fashion outside of 'kids dressing how they want.' However, fashion isn't something I'm very aware of.       I was referring more to music, and how being a 'movie buff' is acceptable but you rarely hear someone say "he's really into music, dude knows his stuff" because there is some kind of attached superiority stigma. [SEP] > I don't beleive hipster is a definable fashion outside of 'kids dressing how they want.' However, fashion isn't something I'm very aware of.  And generally what kids want is to dress like all the other kids while still holding on to a sense of individuality.
You seem to be under the impression that if you're overweight that you're automatically unhealthy and slovenly.  I know people who are chubby or even fat who put a lot of work into the way they look. They're very clean, well-groomed, buy nice clothes, many of the women take great care with their makeup and hair. Some of them even work out regularly and eat healthy foods, and most are in fairly good health.  It's not great to be overweight, especially long-term, but it does not automatically mean you are unhealthy.  >To some this does not sound as bad but really if you think about we are literally programmed by nature to do one thing and one thing only. Fuck. Once you ve reached that point you are no longer a human.  What absolute, pseudo-evo psych nonsense. Sex is important to most romantic relationships and is an important aspect of human experience. If it were the *sole* focus of most relationships and the ultimate goal of all humans, there would be no happy couples that don't get busy that often, and if reproducing were the defining feature of humanity, there would be no couples who don't have children and don't want any.  Humans are animals, but they are also capable of being more, and often choose to be more in many ways. [SEP] > You seem to be under the impression that if you're overweight that you're automatically unhealthy  HAES is a lie.
>How do you even know which people were "terrorized"?  Really?  It's pretty obvious.  If a particular group was targeted, that's how you know who was terrorized.  If no particular group was targeted (or it's not obvious), it's not a hate crime.  [SEP] >If a particular group was targeted, that's how you know who was terrorized.   So a hate crime against gays means all gay people have been "terrorized"? Even the ones who don't know about the crime?   Not to mention that there is no way for you to determine whether somebody else has been "terrorized".   This is just dumbfuck leftist collectivism, where groups are treated as the relevant moral entities. Let me tell you something - they're not. Individuals are the relevant moral entities, not groups. As another commenter already pointed out, hate crimes are nothing but thought crimes. 
Not adding a slider coupled to an integer range doesn't save _that_ much money or time, not even enough to be worth mentioning. It is more the sick notion that changing FOV is regarded as a cheat by devs of stupid games like CoD. From there this unfounded opinion spread like a disease. [SEP] > It is more the sick notion that changing FOV is regarded as a cheat by devs of stupid games like CoD.  CoD has an FOV slider...
> fight like the men/women their characters are supposed to be   What if someone's cosplaying Maldron?   Or Jester Thomas?   Or Navlaan?   Or, you know, some other super-scummy/-badass character? [SEP] > What if someone's cosplaying Maldron?  please god stop it right now
Ex-Muslim living in Europe.  I grew up with a semi-religious father who was raised by a very religious man. His beliefs would take the better of him and he would be considered abusive by today's standards. My mother was religious, but never forced her religion on anyone else. She's a bit modern, so she doesn't cover her hair, but she does wear long sleeve and long shirts when she's out. Overall, she prays and everything, just doesn't cover her head.  I always had a problem with my religion. It wasn't so much the bad parts that I had an issue with, but the compatibility with Western culture. I grew up for a few years in Bristol, and lived my life between Dubai and Syria, and as such, I don't really have a true identity. I identify with parts Syrians and parts Western. It's a mess in my head, because half of my thoughts are in Arabic while half are in English.   Here's my problem: I love the idea of democracy. I love the notion of being able to express myself in anyway I want. I love the fact that I can talk about a leader and not be punished. I love that I can question a religion, and not be killed.  These were the issues I had with Islam.   When I was taught Islam in school, I was taught a happy, fluffy version. A version that seems to not do any wrong. Homosexuality is not God's will. Sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems. Women who don't cover up are to blame for being raped.  And yet when I thought about all these things, they didn't bother me. Yes, some guy is gay. If I find it icky, isn't that on me? Why is it on him? If this person isn't bothering me, why is he to blame?   If a couple have sex outside of marriage, how will it change if there is a legal contract saying they are married?   Why does a woman who have to carry the blame for a person who attacks her? To me this was synonymous with bullying, something that I went through as a child, and it really struck a chord with me. Why do I, owning a penis, get a pass because a woman doesn't cover up her hair? It seemed like bullshit to me.   So time moved on, and I grew older and wiser, and I got to a point where I stopped hanging out with anyone that would even use religious language.   In 2011 I took my first trip to Europe as an adult. It was a shock. Not because of the lifestyle of Europeans, but of the lifestyle of Arabs and Muslims. I've seen more religious extremism in Europe than I have in a lifetime in the Arab world. It was a shock to me. To this day, I don't understand it.  Religion in Syria is a very personal and private affair. We don't judge you based on what God you worship. My home town is considered to be very religious, and even there, Christians lived side by side with Muslims. Every Christmas, there would be decorations and celebrations and carols and church affairs, and every Ramadan the whole city would observe fasting from sunrise to sunset.   My grandmother had a Christian neighbour that would celebrate Ramadan. My grandmother would always put up a Christmas tree because she loved the spirit of Christmas.   I was 14 when I found out her neighbour was Christian, and it was only when one of their family members passed away and we went to the wake. My grandmother, mother, and aunts never mentioned it. When I asked, they said because it's not important. It wasn't worth mentioning, because they didn't care what their religion was.   What does this have to do with Europe?   Europe's problem stems from countries like Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, and the rest of Asia. The further east you go, the more extreme your Islam is. It's the same the further West you go. Though Saudi Arabia isn't a beacon of tolerance, for some reason the countries surrounding it in the Levant seem to be. Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon never cared about what sect you followed from a religious point of view.   For some reason, when Muslims come to Europe, they fail to integrate, and become more extreme with their beliefs.   Why, I don't know. I think part of it is lack of identity. Europe COULD be partially to blame, for seeing these immigrants as second-rate workers, and not seeing them as equals, so their kids grasp on to their identity. It COULD also be that their parents are just cunts and raise them to be hateful and entitled. Except for every extreme story you hear, you'll find one that is very tolerant and able to integrate and live in peace.   There is a new breed of Muslim that is growing, the breed of the Modern Muslim. These are kids who are in their mid-20's and younger, who have been exposed to Western ideas and ideals, who have grown up in a time where you CAN be gay, but it is still dangerous, where you CAN date a girl, but you parents can't find out, where you CAN marry outside your religion, but it is still risky.   And they all say the same thing: while they do believe in the religion, they think it is time for a reform. They think it is time to not be so extreme in our reactions. A lot of people would tell you in a private conversation that they have no issue with a homosexual, but get them together, and they will shout angry rhetoric about how they need to be stoned. This is the problem with being a Muslim: you are ashamed of your thoughts because you don't want to be marginalised within your society/community. I know it because I went through it. You're afraid of the isolation so you go with the crowd, even though inside you know you don't agree with it.   This modern Muslim is growing in the majority of the Arab world. Globalisation has brought a lot of new thought into the dialogue.   A lot of these Modern Muslims don't discount the Qu'uran or the hadith, but rather believe since it is an eternal message, that God predicted the changes in humanity, and as such, the language used can be interpreted to work with the times. We don't live in 1253, where it would be acceptable to stone someone for having a different belief (no matter what Saudi tries to tell you, it is unacceptable). We live in 2015, where we are accepting our differences and commonalities, where we can accept that people can have different views on subjects and still be civil with each other. As such, they read the Qu'uran and think that the verses that call on for killing people are no longer relevant, and such acts should be left to God, as he is the final judge of all. If a person is homosexual, judge him on his actions to others, not on who he bangs. If God is really angry with him being homosexual, then God will sort him out.   While these seem to be contradictory to a lot of what is known about Islam and Muslims, there are a lot of parts that say God is the last judge, that we are just here temporarily, that we do not know his final plan, that we can only follow his will.   So these Modern Muslims leave it all to God. Are you a tranny that can't figure out how to dress? I'll treat you based on how you treat others, and let God sort out the rest. Are you a girl who wants to marry a Christian? I'll treat you based on how you treat others and let God sort out the rest. So on and so forth.  I went to college with religious folk who had gay friends. Their reasoning was, I am not God, and I cannot judge this person just because he likes to sleep with a person of the same sex. I will treat him based on how he treats me and others. That is what dictates he is a good/bad person. The rest is up to God.  The problem with a lot of Muslims is, they seem to forget this. They seem to forget that while God made rules to govern humanity, he is the final judge. That while we are told to execute murderers and what not, this person will ultimately be judged by God, and we are in no position to judge them.  Europe's problem is that they are missing out on this modern Muslim. Why, I cannot tell. Part of me believes that because Europe has had a bad experience with Moroccans/Turks, they leave them alone and brush them with the same brush. Suddenly all Syrians are like Moroccans, even though we do not get along with them at all. I stayed in a room with 5 other Muslims that would pray and fast and what not, but they would get stoned on weekends and drink every now and then. To a lot of them, it is just cultural, the same way Christianity and Judaism can be cultural. It's a modern era for this religion, and a lot of people are abiding by the norms, not the religion.   I don't know how to solve this problem, sadly. I look at the US, and I notice Muslims are way better integrated there than in Europe. Maybe it's because the US is a younger country, and as such, it is composed of many ethnicities, while Europe tries to hold on to it's own because it's been inhabited for thousands of years. Maybe it's because Americans are more tolerant, but I doubt that. Maybe it's because Europeans aren't as social as Americans, so these immigrants don't integrate as well. I don't know. All I do know is that Islam needs a kick in the ass and needs to be modernised if it is to live peacefully with the modern world.   All this isn't enough for me to follow the faith. I believe in Science and not a magical being living in the sky.  Tl;dr Islam can be bad. Not all Muslims are bad.  [SEP] > Europe's problem is that they are missing out on this modern Muslim.  nope nope nope. I have quite a few friends that perfectly fit your definition of a "modern muslim". Not missing out anything over here. 
Davis's job as the County Clerk is not to grant personal permission for marriages to take place. Her job is not to determine whether a marriage meets her own personal religious doctrines.   **Davis's job as the Rowan County Clerk** is to ascertain whether the applicants for a Kentucky marriage license have met all of the minimum statutory requirements and have provided all of the necessary documents in order to obtain a legal marriage license. Once those prerequisites have been met, Davis's job as the Rowan County Clerk is to then certify that those requirements have been fulfilled by issuing a marriage license, which provides a legal record for the applicant couple verifying that they have met those legal requirements.   And if her personal religious views prevent her from fulfilling the requirements of that job **as she had taken an oath to do**, then Davis should immediately step down and find another line of work that does not create such a obligational conflict for her. Maybe Mike Huckabee could hire her to fill a $80K per year clerical position in his religious organization?   If Davis refuses to comply with the conditions of the release agreement, then she needs to be remanded to a jail cell asap and the Clerk's office should be placed under court ordered federal receivership.  [SEP] > the Clerk's office should be placed under court ordered federal receivership.  What exactly does this mean?  Will federal agents work inside the clerks office to do all the marriage licensing?  Is there precedent for this sort of thing?
>How do you not interpret that as, "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands."  You're missing out a crucial bit.  instead, it's pretty clearly: "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands to keep your soul clean."  You missing the end off made it sound like the advice is wider reaching than it was.  Jesus was talking about the relation between washing hands and cleanliness of your soul.  Attaching any other meaning to it is a misinterpretation.  >At the very least, an omniscient deity who has a complete knowledge of germs and bacteria, should have added the qualifier: "It's not a sin to eat with unwashed hands, but it's probably still a good idea to wash them anyway."  Why?  There's no problem with how it is.  It fails to specifically guard against a wacky misinterpretation that you have no evidence of anyone falling for other than yourself - but all the evidence that it's wacky is there.  All he really doesn't say is "and by the way, if you haven't got the message by now, I'm not talking about sickness and disease when I'm talking about the relationship between sin and handwashing - in case you forgot there are other things that handwashing does help with, like having clean hands.  Just in case 2000 years later someone gets the wrong end of that particular stick - I was saying washing doesn't cleanse sin, but just in case you get confused please don't forget washing also cleans other things quite nicely." [SEP] >instead, it's pretty clearly: "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands to keep your soul clean."  As I clearly stated, my point was that many people will hear that they don't have to wash their hands in order to keep their soul clean, and then they'll stop washing their hands.   >"and by the way, if you haven't got the message by now, I'm not talking about sickness and disease when I'm talking about the relationship between sin and handwashing - in case you forgot there are other things that handwashing does help with, like having clean hands.  You're assuming that these people already knew that washing their hands prevents disease. My contention is that they did not.   These were 1st century people. They didn't know anything about germs. If they didn't have spiritual reasons for washing their hands, then they wouldn't see a reason to wash their hands. These are people who believed that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits.  Hygienic hand washing didn't become a thing until the 1800s.   
In terms of teamfighting, I find that often the only person I can safely attack is their tank.  The problem there becomes they have so much armor and health that it takes forever to kill them.  Do you just have to have patience here and assume most teamfights you mostly be attacking their tank (or bruiser ) who charges your backline and the other teammates won't be targets until much later in the fight?  I have a hard time in teamfights deciding when to be somewhat aggressive and try to deal consistent damage to the enemy team versus playing it safe, ensuring I survive, but possibly doing extremely little damage.  Depending on the team comp, it *almost* seems I would win more if stay way, way back and don't even attack a single enemy until all enemies have used their ults already and only then come engage for my first attack.   I'm assuming this is just the kind of thing that comes with experience, and is highly dependent on team comp: do they have assassins, do you have great peel, shields or heals etc.  [SEP] >Do you just have to have patience here and assume most teamfights you mostly be attacking their tank (or bruiser ) who charges your backline and the other teammates won't be targets until much later in the fight?  Yes, when ahead its efficient to bulldoze through their entire team even if you must hit 4k hp mundo, as by being ahead, your overall DPS is higher then your opposing ADC, so you'll be able to kill their team faster then he can kill your team.   However, priority target selection still applies in this case. Hit the closest most threatening member of their team that you can attack without being in more then one enemies threat range.  >deal consistent damage to the enemy team versus playing it safe  This is a judgement call that you have to evaluate on a game-by-game basis. If you can die and take down enough threats with you to allow your team to win the teamfight/get an objective then its in your favor to deal as much dps as possible before dying, rather then dealing sporadic and lesser dps while surviving.  I can remember one CLG vs DIG? game last season that lasted almost 60-70 min based off both team's ADC playing extremely passively with regards to dpsing and positioning.  The game finally completed when Doublelift on Graves decided to suicide and do as much burst as he could before dying, allowing his team to clean up and win the game. Every situation is unique, and should be evaluated properly before committing to one idea.
That is a great paper, but let's put it into context. The conclusion is that theoretically, it is more difficult to enforce collusion in a prisoner's dilemma scenario than a network industry scenario. This paper is hardly a hand wave against nay sayers, it is interesting but you cannot simply link this and say the discussion is over.  I only did undergrad econ so I am not on the same level of discourse as Caplan.   That being said, I think I have a critique. I have heard arguments for an ancap FDA before for example, the idea being that a third party entity is in business purely to verify the safety of food and drugs. Their business model is based on reputation, so this third party entity has no incentive to cheat, collude, accept bribes in the short run.  If we look at the assumptions of the basic prisoner's dilemma, it requires both parties in the classic scenario to have no knowledge of what the other one is saying to police in the interrogation room. Basically, for a classic prisoner's dilemma to exist there needs to be information asymmetry and the expectation that your competitor will cheat in the future. Thus, you cheat first because if cheating is inevitable, you mine as well be the one to do it.  But what if there was a third party firm whose business model was solely centered around surveillance of the cartel member firms? Their business would rely upon reputation, so this third party entity would have no incentive to help any single party in the cartel cheat. This would eliminate the information asymmetry in the classic prisoner's dilemma scenario, and make price collusion more similar to a network industry scenario, where it actually hurts individual dissenters who do not cooperate. Expectations for future cheating by other cartel member firms would be lessened or non-existent, there is no longer any incentive to cheat because the member firms all know each others quantity produced and pricing from a trusted independent third party source.  And I have to mention that all of this is dependent upon the reliability and accuracy of neoclassical econ models and assumptions, which I actually don't believe, but I am accepting all this for the sake of argument. [SEP] > you cannot simply link this and say the discussion is over.  You asked a simple question, he gave a simple answer. 
>The basic philosophy of feminism is that women and men should be equal. Saying that belief in the patriarchy is an integral part of being a feminist and that people are rightly kept out of discussions because they don't subscribe to it is very clearly what I'm talking about.   The problem here is that feminism isn't just a debate group.  Feminist theory/women's studies/gender studies is an *academic discipline*, under the subheading of sociology, with some fifty years of study and analysis and, yes, even experimentation, justifying the basic analytical underpinnings of the feminist movement.  Saying that you're a feminist but you don't believe in patriarchy as a concept is like saying you're a physicist but quantum entanglement is just too weird for you to accept.  That's why, like TCZapper points out, a lot of feminist spaces refuse to deal with 'feminist 101' questions:  because feminism's not *just* 'women and men should be equal' - hell, the *Vatican* believes that - but also a set of theories about *why* women and men are unequal, and if you don't understand or accept that theoretical background, you're probably not a feminist.  And just in brief:  >And, oh the good old cartoon clearly labeling the vandals that ruin all discussion as MRAs. Wouldn't a sub so heavily infected by these assholes downvote the post calling them out to oblivion? Not upvote it to the all time top spot?   The lurkers are mostly feminists, the comment section is full of MRAs.  This dichotomy between readers and commenters shows up all over Reddit - for example, r/science, where like half the front page posts have top comments explaining why the post is bullshit. [SEP] > Saying that you're a feminist but you don't believe in patriarchy as a concept is like saying you're a physicist but quantum entanglement is just too weird for you to accept.  So what's the Bell's Inequality of feminism?
Oh yes! Makes guys look so much more smarter somehow. Its like a magic wand, a good fit check shirt in nice dark colors and the guy looks smart! [SEP] > check shirt in nice dark colors  Did you see me today :o  
It's like what a commentor said a day or so ago, remember to take a break from KiA every so often.  Some people really need to take that advice and let themselves calm down a bit so they can think and act a bit more clearly.  [SEP] > take a break from KiA every so often  reddit too. life finds a way.
Yes and no.    I mean graphics on the software side are definitely advancing, but I don't think they are advancing faster than the hardware is, we've over the past decade we've seen the standard gaming resolution push from something crazy like 1024x768/1280x1024 to 1080p/1440p, meanwhile GPUs are getting exponentially faster.  Not to mention as we make the push to higher and higher resolutions it's making extra processing like Anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering completely unnecessary.  We are going to be getting to a point where unless you have a highly trained eye you literally can't discern the difference and what is going to matter most is the texture quality.  I'd say the 900 GTX will give 4k a solid run for the money, and the 1000 GTX (or however they change the name) will be very 60fps+ on 4k. [SEP] > over the past decade we've seen the standard gaming resolution push from something crazy like 1024x768/1280x1024 to 1080p/1440p  You remember the last decade a lot differently than I do. I was already on 1080p a decade ago. 1024x768 was more like 20 years ago.
You all are dilusional.  If you actually had a serious conversation with most dudes in the navy they could go on and on about the troubles working with females brings.   You are straight fucking lying if you want a 130 lb female to come rescue you in a fire versus an average built male.   [SEP] > You are straight fucking lying if you want a 130 lb female to come rescue you in a fire versus an average built male.    I'm pretty sure I'd want someone bigger over someone smaller regardless of gender. Is there something unique about a 130 pound woman (vice a 130 pound person) that makes her unsuitable to assist? Or should we set out minimum size requirements to serve in certain billets?
How am I supposed to know to look in /r/politics, eh?  Still, while I'm sure she has a thing against Israel and Jews, her comment does bring up an interesting point.  Why ARE we allowed to call the President whatever the fuck we want but it's political suicide to criticize Israel.  Either, we should be more careful with what we say regarding our President or pro-Israel advocates need to lighten up a bit.  The top vote only got 272 net votes, the way you posted it was misleading.  You can upvote something in the hopes that more people read it, but that doesn't mean you agree with it.  Need I quote reddiquette?  Also, I feel that while her past comment did not cross the line into anti-semetism (making it ok to support) these new accusations have.  She's getting more and more extreme making her less and less a moderate liberal.  There are far more moderate liberals than extreme ones. [SEP] >Why ARE we allowed to call the President whatever the fuck we want but it's political suicide to criticize Israel.  Because the President is President of our own country.  It's not political suicide to *criticize* Israel, by the way, people do that *all the time*.  What's political suicide is what Thomas is doing: demonizing Israel, because most people in the USA still recognize antisemitism when they see it.
One way you can incrementally back up data to a second disk is... RAID 1 :)  There are only 2 types of hard drive - those which have failed, and those which are going to fail. "Burning out" of disks is irrelevant; it's the data that matters. RAID 1 means that the probability you will lose data is reduced to the probability that both drives will fail at the same time (presumably very low).  The software RAID implementation in the Linux kernel is excellent, as good as (if not better than) all but the most expensive hardware RAID controllers. You won't get much of a performance increase with a 2-disk RAID 1 solution, however. [SEP] Yes Raid1 would incrementally "backup" at the controller (HW or SW) level... but it's not a *backup*. Accidentally delete a file and it's gone! If you schedule a backup (hourly, for example) and run it via software you can control it - If you accidentally delete a file you can restore it from the backup file before the backup runs, you can archive backups, set policy on whether to remove files deleted from the backup etc.  This was why I was really asking about the requirements... RAID is for speed & redundancy... it's not a backup solution. With a RAID 1 your O/s (server, whatever) will continue to run in the event of a disk failure.   OP states that it's going to be used on a desktop - redundancy is not usually an issue. If one of the disks dies and you have a backup (not RAID mirror) then you get a new disk, reinstall O/s & copy data over - not a big deal really.  >"Burning out" of disks is irrelevant; it's the data that matters.  Drives wear more when under load & as such a disk that is accessed less often is less likely to fail than one which is reading / writing data all the time. RAID 1 - yes you'd need both the drives to fail at the same time which is not very likely, but by running both of them all the time you increase the chance that either one will fail. Again, it's a requirement of a redundant system.  With a desktop this is (usually) not an issue so you're needlessly causing extra load on a disk. OP states his 2nd disk is from an ageing server (so has probably had a hard life) - I'd take this as an issue - Running access to an old disk occasionally is not a problem but running it at full speed will reduce it's operational lifespan dramatically - I'd be happier running a daily backup to a backup disk (incremental, so not too much disk load) and running the O/s (and live data) from a different disk.   I suppose thats down to personal preference really... but using RAID as a backup solution I'd advise against.  Unrelated, but OP should be running 64-bit if he wants to use all his 4GB RAM ;-) 
Thanks! It's not really an argument for an improved shooting range, explicitly. I think you're taking that from my devils advocate about bot matches and the shooting range. It's just one of the counter arguments I figured would be easy to bring up, and I tackled that is all.  [SEP] > I think you're taking that from my devils advocate about bot matches and the shooting range.  Yes, but we can simplify that whole line of reasoning down to "There is currently no way to warmup/practice" or "the current way to warmup/practice is insufficient".   While you did use it as a devils advocate argument, it was also used as a reason for the death match gamemode. Again, while deathmatch (as you presented it) would be a solution to the issues you address I simply feel like your exact same argument (along with the other points you mention) could just as easily be used for another solution that isn't deathmatch.  Off topic a bit, but it might be worth noting that datamining shows the "arena" gamemode is coming back. Hoping it's more like what you suggest than how it worked in the past :P
>Labeling him an "illegal immigrant" just removes us from seeing the very real human tragedy that lead to his death  They are illegal immigrants.  The term offending you does not change this fact.  If they were genuine asylum seekers then they would have sought asylum in the first safe nation.   Going beyond those nations is just a blatant grab at welfare and better economic stability.  [SEP] > Going beyond those nations is just a blatant grab at welfare and better economic stability.  Wow. Hard to see from way up there on your high horse? *OF COURSE* they want better living conditions. How is that remotely surprising or controversial. If they leave everything they have and know behind, why the hell should it be surprising that they don't want to end up in a place where they'll be exactly as homeless and vulnerable as they were in their former home? Come on.
I am so glad that you had such a positive experience! It sounds comfortable and arousing all in one go, which a lot of people are afraid of at sex clubs, especially.   There is a great comic by Erika Moen on her experiences at Ron Jeremy's Sex Club in Portland it has since been shut down.  My partner and myself happened to go there a few times before the fire code issues cropped up. We had hopes on it re-opening, but are now looking for other locations.   Just being able to be in a friendly sex positive environment, that also happened to have a liquor license and a buffet was fun! I am glad there really are still places that cater to the more kinky and accepting heathens ;P .  [SEP] > comic by Erika Moen   Haha "jerka jerka"
... I'm not really sure how to respond to that. Your logic makes no sense. This isn't halo. This isn't the halo universe. They're making something new and not halo. [SEP] >Your logic makes no sense.  Oh, the hilarity of that statement.  I never said it was Halo, I said they have done emotionless A.I. characters before that have not sounded like shit.  He is not "realistically synthetic" he sounds like an actor reading a script, BADLY.  GLaDOS is a character that sounds realistically synthetic, she speaks with the same mannerisms all game and her personality shines through the dialogue.  Dinklage is all over the fucking place as The Ghost, his dramatic "ITS... THE HIVE" quote is embarrassingly bad as he tries to sound worried and add tension, its just... bad.  Trying to sound synthetic does not mean trying to sound like absolute shit.
Yeah, but it becomes pretty hypocritical when you claim to be libertarian but only want freedom for straight, white males.    Liberty has to be for everyone. [SEP] I'm largely NOT talking about people who "claim" to be libertarian or authoritarian.  Most people who lean libertarian or authoritarian don't actually self-describe as such.  >but only want freedom for straight, white males.  I think you might be exaggerating a bit.
Ah, History 12.  In response to learning Japan had invaded China, "Why would Japan invade China? Aren't they in Asia?"  Also, "Hitler isn't dead"  And upon hearing that Japan is the only country to ever be attacked with nuclear weapons, this student then cited 9/11 and the millions that died during that horrendous nuclear attack.  Every day was agony. [SEP] > Also, "Hitler isn't dead"  For the last 15 odd years I've found this one particularly amusing.  The man was born in 1889, ok, perhaps he didn't kill himself in a bunker in 1945, but he's dead now.
Travel Reward Cards generally suck.  I've never been impressed with them and have gone back and forth several times with "Pro Travel Rewards Cards" people and they have never once shown me how they are better than just normal cards unless you are churning.  If you plan to churn, then visit /r/churning.  If you don't want to churn, then I would recommend getting a good rewards card like SallieMae BarclayCard or the Citi DoubleCash card and then just using your cash back from those to pay for your travel.  All the travel rewards card is doing is forcing you to use your points towards travel, but you're going to be getting less than if you just used a normal cashback rewards card and funneled that money to travel.  If you want to travel, then budget for it, don't use a less than efficient travel card to force you into it. [SEP] > All the travel rewards card is doing is forcing you to use your points towards travel  Given my wife's desire for travel (and my nearly complete disregard), I'll consider this a feature, not a bug.  >If you want to travel, then budget for it, don't use a less than efficient travel card to force you into it.  Great advice. Self-discipline almost always wins.
>Yea, I'm in an extremely lucrative profession  Bahahahahaha, you think anyone actually believes your cowardly bullshit? You're a sad autist and eternal virgin, go put another 1000 hours into this terrible game kiddo. Just face it, you're a scrub baby with bad stats and you're upset about it having to acknowledge that fact. Go cry somewhere else about it.  >It doesn't need any more scrubs like yourself crying because vehicles are too hard.  Haha and yet my vehicle stats are better then yours (well, all of them are), don't be angry that you've put so much time into this series and yet are still really bad at it. I love shitting on scrub coward pubstars like you, deal with it kiddo. [SEP] > I love shitting on scrub coward pubstars  Says the pubstar too afraid to post his battlelog or accept a scrim.  Find some more excuses.  You know you're beat.  You cannot walk the walk.
And how do you explain the inconsistencies such as certain narratives being repeated twice? [SEP] > certain narratives being repeated twice  That was a common practice in most Middle Eastern books of the period.
I read somewhere that it only works up to 30 blocks, but don't quote me on that [SEP] >I read somewhere that it only works up to 30 blocks, but don't quote me on that  ~/u/Lanyovan, June 15th, 2014, at about 11:00am in the eastern time zone
Wait we believe that economies work and can be studied in concrete fashion, but personal choices can't?  She puts forth that casual sex isn't good for women, that's not a mystical belief it is a logical assertion.  The question is whether or not that is true, not if it is insulting.  [SEP] >Wait we believe that economies work and can be studied in concrete fashion  Austrian economics?
Peasant Comments:  * lol that will shut the noise from PC gamers. * lol master race * There are plenty of mods on ps and Xbox you just have to look for them * Thats because pc gamers may have better tech but are NOT better or bigger than console gamers. And we won't talk about how many pc gamers pirate all their games.   [SEP] > There are plenty of mods on ps and Xbox you just have to look for them  Wat? what? WHAT? WHAT THE ACTUAL FLYING FUCK? 
If you search on google, the google definition at the top is a compiler. The 'injure or kill' portion is from the oxford english dictionary. The only other place it shows up is in the 'translations' box of thefreedictionary.com, but not in the definition portion. I don't know what that means.   I'm curious where else you're finding it outside of oxford - but it's a moot point - because I acknowledge that words change over time in my post, and I was simply musing over how I feel this is a change for the worse. [SEP] > I'm curious where else you're finding it outside of oxford      Common parlance?
Thank you for the very thorough answer.   An example of how much space I actually use would probably be this past summer's week long trip to Mexico. A lot of outdoor activities were done so a lot of footage was recorded, but that was primarily recorded in 1080p because my old computer rig at the time wasn't powerful enough for 4K. However despite shooting 95% 1080p I shot about 100GB of footage to comb through.   My main SSD will have Win7 for now, and eventually Win10 once the kinks are worked out. It'll have plenty of apps installed with the usuals like MS Office but especially the entire Adobe suite. It will have a few games installed on there as well but most of the games will be installed on the slower but much larger "Data" HDD. Even so even just a couple latest-gen games can add up at at least 50GB each. For the OS + apps/couple games reason alone I wanted at least 256GB for the OS drive if it doesn't also include projects on it, and 500GB or bigger if it does.   I would only be working on 1 project at a time on this theoretical project-only SSD. Again this past trip the source footage was around 100GB but that was at 1080p, but on the other hand that is probably an extreme example of the upper end of how much source footage I end up with for a project.   I will absolutely be backing up SSDs and HDDs regularly and to the cloud.   For what it's worth the rig I am building right now has a i7-5820k; MSI X99S Sli Krait mobo, 32GB RAM, GTX 980 video card.   Thanks.  [SEP] > An example of how much space I actually use would probably be this past summer's week long trip to Mexico.  That doesn't tell me anything about how much footage you shot. In a week I could shoot an hour's worth of footage, or twenty hours worth.  >My main SSD will have Win7 for now, and eventually Win10 once the kinks are worked out.  FWIW, Windows 10 is pretty damn stable. I've been running it ever since the Technical Preview came out, and licensing issues aside it's rock solid.  >It'll have plenty of apps installed with the usuals like MS Office but especially the entire Adobe suite.  Figure out how much space each of those are using, and add that to about 20GB for the OS, and there you go. Consider that some apps don't need to be installed on the SSD and can be installed elsewhere. For example, do you need a blasting fast load time for MS Office?
VPN? So you buy VPN service and assume they won't turn you in when they get slapped with a court order? Don't people realize that VPN hides your IP from the final destination but doesn't hide what you are doing from the VPN provider?  And who is to say the MPAA, etc, isn't running the VPN service to nab you? [SEP] A VPN is better than nothing.   >So you buy VPN service and assume they won't turn you in when they get slapped with a court order?  You do realise that you can get a VPN located practically anywhere in the world, right? You do realise that different countries have different laws, right? You do realise that US courts can't compel non-US companies to do anything, right?  The same applies for seedboxes.
I think that's a bit of a stretch to presume that much about his meaning behind it, but even still, not rape.    As unfortunate as it might be, we live in a time where "Can I fuck you" actually gets a positive response more often than we might like to admit.  Hell, you almost have to admire not bothering to coat it in lies.    So that's the tactic he went with.  Saying "Oh but I'm the bad guy", says nothing to the effect of "Well, say no all you want, I'm gonna come get it..."  THAT would be rape.  This is not.  [SEP] >I think that's a bit of a stretch to presume that much about his meaning behind it  Considering the number of rape/harassment victims who get asked "what were you wearing?" before anything else, it's actually not a stretch at all.  >Hell, you almost have to admire not bothering to coat it in lies.   Um...no? You actually don't have to admire a guy who thinks his penis is more important that a girl's right not to be propositioned by random creeps. This wasn't a girl posting to /r/gonewild saying "PMs welcome!", the girl in the OP posted her photos in a completely non-sexual context. Even if you think "man, I want to fuck her," that's something you keep to yourself.
Yeah been here since day one and never seen that for locks so dunno what you mean by missed that. It doesn't even fit the warlock vibe, just like the above user mentioned, bro is a Titan thing. [SEP] > Yeah been here since day one and never seen that  Then you haven't been paying attention.  Here, let me link you to numerous posts which made the front page in the early days of the game.   https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2syilo/warlock_kills_during_radiance_should_count_as/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2j0s56/the_worst_part_about_being_a_sunbro/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2n2rw6/sunbros_in_the_expansion_we_will_get_a_chest/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/31vihl/media_my_destiny_art_sunbro_warlock_with/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2j6q66/sunbros_use_this_simple_trick_to_bound_across_maps/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/39sqb7/so_phogoth_is_a_sunbro/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2imw9u/perks_of_being_a_sunsinger/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2n6rea/rolled_a_warlock_specifically_to_be_a_sunbro_i/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2rrd1e/sunbros_who_never_super/  https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/38xavs/hunter_vs_sunbros_place_your_bets/  I can do this all day if you want me to.  
No, they would.  I'm Engineer #1 at a rather large finance company and if *anyone* came in and started mouthing off consistently about a system they barely understand, then they'd be on probation before they knew it.  Also, never listen to anything some contractor has to say. [SEP] >No, they would.  I'm Engineer #1 at a rather large finance company and if *anyone* came in and started mouthing off consistently about a system they barely understand, then they'd be on probation before they knew it.    This is twisting my statement and coming to a ridiculous conclusion.   "Mouthing off" isn't the same thing as trying to learn a system and making comments and/or suggestions about it. They certainly don't need to be negative comments. Minimally, a conversation like that is an opportunity for the new hire to learn your architecture and for you to get a fresh pair of eyes on something. If you'd put an employee on probation for this conversation, then I'd hate to work at your company. It sounds miserable.   > Also, never listen to anything some contractor has to say.  Why? Believe it or not, some places contract to hire as their main source of hiring, and some contractors feel just as much ownership over a product as full timers. A lot of companies use contractors for new application development to "try before you buy" the worker and scale up their development resources. I can safely say that the main driving force of development at my last two companies were contractors.   If your experience is that contractors are money-grubbing developers that don't care about the product, then I can somewhat understand this view. I've seen contractors produce insanely bad code, but I've seen the same from full time developers as well. Surely you must understand at some level that contract code = crap code isn't true universally.   If your experience is that your contractors are bad, perhaps an opportunity exists for your company to screen them better and bring in a higher quality developer whose experiences you value.   Edit: spelling
At the point where you're worse than Sarah Palin, don't you have to quit the race? [SEP] > At the point where you're worse than Sarah Palin, don't you have to quit the race?  No. That is inconsistent with incompetence. Incompetence is emboldened. 
> have it approved  This costs millions of dollars. If you wanted to be benevolent, you could finance this by fleecing the insurance companies, raising the list price on existing drugs they'd be paying for.  [SEP] > This costs millions of dollars  Which is why no one is giving drugs away for free.
I don't own any crazy expensive ammo, so I've never had an issue letting someone use my stuff. If you are generous, you might have it paid back to you. One guy at my range brought in his pre-ban giggle-switch AR he had modified back in the day. It was awesome. [SEP] > pre-ban giggle-switch  I'm a total newbie but very much enjoy this sub. Does that mean it was illegally modified to shoot full auto? 
>It's entirely possible for an action to happen during a play that is dirtier than one happening after.  Sure, but Meriweather hitting someone high doesn't trump Suh kicking someone in the dick completely on purpose.   Suh's dirty plays are so dirty that there is no defending them. Meriweathers dirty plays are hard hitting football plays, Suh's are just straight up cheap shots.    I really don't see how it's not black and white.   Suh is so much dirtier. [SEP] > I really don't see how it's not black and white.  Because very few things are. Meriweather's recklessness has had the potential to seriously and possibly fatally injure dozens, maybe hundreds of players during his career. Shit, who knows how many lives he *has* ruined through delivering unnecessary hits to other player's heads throughout his entire football career.  But yeah Suh did one thing after a whistle so it's *automatically* a dirtier play? I disagree.
Why the fuck is pure blond advertising that it has less calories than wine? Might as well advertise that it has less calories than coke for how relevant it is. [SEP] >Why the fuck is pure blond advertising that it has less calories than wine? Might as well advertise that it has less calories than coke for how relevant it is.  Pure blonde, much easier to drink than sand.  Much better for your teeth than a brick.
I don't love this article. Not a word about the **zero** unemployment in the non-union skilled trades, nothing about small business, and the lion's share of credit going to Albany for incentive programs such as Solar City.  Sincere question: Does anybody know anybody who has benefited in any way from Solar City (besides Ciminelli)? [SEP] > Does anybody know anybody who has benefited in any way from Solar City (besides Ciminelli)?  Every single construction worker who has had a solid 8 months+  running project that includes a paycheck.  All of the drivers getting paid for trucking loads on site.  There's more.  You want more examples of whom has benefited?
Honestly Joe interrupts people all the time, which can get really annoying for guests. But more importantly, Faber and Ludwig are in the middle of a massive dispute, so suddenly we can cherry pick out of context behaviour and make assumptions based on that? "Wow, Bang spoke quickly once, he is probably on drugs, no he has a drug addiction, no his dispute with TAM was because he got greedy for money to fuel his racism and drug habit".   Jesus fucking christ, I don't know enough about Ludwig or Faber to know who the fuck is right, but maybe, MAYBE we can take shit people say with a grain of salt instead of immediately bringing out the pitch forks against someone who 24 hours before we didn't all consider to be a racist sexist peanut butter hustling piece of shit. [SEP] > Honestly Joe interrupts people all the time, which can get really annoying for guests.   The show's name is well-chosen.
'another guy walks passed me and says "hey gorgeous, have a beautiful day" (in a tone... you know the one) and I shouted "no!" and he said "I said have a great day" and I just shouted no again and kept walking.'  I don't think this was sexual enough for such a reaction and I don't think it's reasonable, but I don't care about the "NO!" that much, I would just be irritated as a man. I don't understand how some women complain (in my country) that men don't spontaneously talk to women anymore (aka where have the real men gone), and at the same time there are women shouting at any man that tries to talk to them. You should know that for some men it needs a lot of courage to talk to a random girl you don't know, and being shouted at in this situation is definitely devastating to them, crushing their (already small) self-confidence.  But the comment clearly puts men on one level with dogs, and even if it is a joke, it's damn stupid. She sees men as Untermensch, as a Nazi would say it.  But I agree that I should see other feminist subreddits, just to have a better view on it. I didn't know /r/feminism had that few active users, since there are so many post there. [SEP] >You should know that for some men it needs a lot of courage to talk to a random girl you don't know, and being shouted at in this situation is definitely devastating to them, crushing their (already small) self-confidence.  I understand that. But we're not talking about men who are legitimately trying to start conversations in socially acceptable settings, like I said earlier. We're talking about ones who lick their lips when they see an attractive girl pass them, or make sexual comments, or who don't take a polite "no," for an answer. Men who do those things, quite frankly, are sort of asking to be treated like dogs.  And also, a sub that doesn't uniformly focus on "feminist" issues but is decidedly feminist is TrollXChromosomes. They don't always discuss gender issues, but when they do, they're usually very fair to men. Just remember that when they do complain about male behavior, they are usually complaining about *that specific behavior,* and they are not saying it's something all men do.   
Women who take themselves too seriously. If she does not have the self esteem to take light ribbing/joking she will likely not have the self esteem for a normal relationship. All the women I know like this get very clingy/desperate or controlling. But even things like yes its nice to look nice, but no one is going to care if you don't wear make up to xyz.   Similarly any woman who takes YOU/the relationship too seriously. If it feels too serious, then it probably is. These types of women tend to be husband focused in my experience. Or just like flat out nuts.   Being an adult and having a massive passion for Disney. Or anything kinda childish.   Anyone who's a bad drunk. This is just an extension of them. And if she can't consistently hold her liquor.   If she's boring and incurious. I feel like that doesn't need to be said.   If she cares about brands or status symbols an ODDLY large amount.   If she doesn't work but needs more cash or relies on someone else for money when she could work.   When she uses you as a coping mechanism. Is it nice to have the support of a partner? Absolutely. Is that the same thing as putting your partner in a difficult scenario (missing friends/hobbies/work) consistently to get "support" for trivial shit. Being an adult means taking care of your emotions and not letting them trash other people's lives.   If she talks shit about all her close friends.   If she has no hobbies or passions.   If she doesn't blink enough.  [SEP] > If she doesn't blink enough.  i keep falling for those kinds of women. it's my weakness
Sometimes, the game developers' attachment to the game can blind them, maybe even too much.  Elemental: War of Magic was a very key example of this, the game, during beta, was plagued with issues and base design decisions that almost unanimously were being spoken of in the forums as broken or boring.  The devs never heard. The side of the crowd of 'it's BETA!' was, as always, there, and as always, 1.0 didnt do anything to fix it.  War of Magic failed disastrously. Reviews across the board saying it sucked and felt unfinished, both critics and players disliked it.  Eventually the CEO of the company, and one of the developers of the game, came out and explained this, they were so invested in it, that they were blind, and dismissed everything the players said.  They changed a lot for the next Elemental games, even gave the next 2 for free to those that had pre ordered WoM, so I dont hold them a grudge, if anything I felt shocked for the 'repayment' pack.  And yet, three Elementals down the line, try as I might, I just cant get to like it.  Perhaps CO has started to see Skylines a bit like this, and I wouldnt be surprised. As Skylines came out, it was an unending train of pure praise and all, it's hard to be self-critical in the face of that. [SEP] > Sometimes, the game developers' attachment to the game can blind them, maybe even too much.  Hell, a lot of people playing Super Mario Maker have noticed the very same thing - they think they have tested every single facet of the level, then the other players manage to break the level in seemingly obscure ways.  It's pretty much a reality of software development that no matter how many test cases you think of, the user will always manage to stumble across issues that you never encountered almost immediately.  It's like that thing where when you are actively looking for something, you can't find it, but then when you stop looking, you find it.
What do you guys think their plan is for Hayne? He seems to have a very minor role as RB, and a very minor role in special teams. If anyone is going to show quick improvement from getting game time it's Hayne, so why not play him more in junk time?  [SEP] > What do you guys think their plan is for Hayne?  I figure they've got him playing the role of a sort of hope mascot.  Hayne's potential to improve is all that 49ers have left to give them hope, so preserving that is seen as more important than his actual improvement.  Paradoxically, they can't play Hayne because he'll improve which detracts from his potential to improve which means all hope is lost.  Makes sense if you don't think about it.
>Statistics, my friend. They mean things.  Yep. Figures don't lie but a lot of liars figure. They do not 'mean' that when 80 and 95% of a population adopt a system, the system is wrong. In your case, you are taking a single data point from a sample and a single data point from a sub population of that sample and attempting to define a correlation. A really sophomoric canard! Shame on you for sleeping through statistics 101!  OMG! I spent a lot of time in Thailand. You are out of your skull!! [SEP] > They do not 'mean' that when 80 and 95% of a population adopt a system, the system is wrong.   Are you really this dense?  Let's say that you come up with a theory: blondes are smarter than brunettes.   How would you test this without testing every blonde and brunette on earth?   Here's how.   First, you figure out the percentage of people who are blonde and the percentage who are brunette.    Say it's 25% and 40%, respectively.  Then you take some measure of intelligence, say, "belonging to Mensa", or "in the top 10% of SAT scores".    If 10% of Mensa members are blonde and 45% are brunette; and 15% of people in the top 10% of SAT scores are blonde and 50% are brunettes, that proves your theory wrong.   It doesn't necessarily support the opposite theory (brunettes are smarter), but it does point in that direction.   The key point is it definitely refutes the original theory, blondes are smarter.  Now, see if you can figure out how that relates to your theory that socialized medicine is good for a country.  > I spent a lot of time in Thailand.   Thai porn sites don't count as going to that country.  Sorry.
What trinkets do you recommend for raiding vs mythic +? I'm hoping to get the one off Ursoc and the one off of spider bird but rngeezus has been a real mcasshole. [SEP] > and the one off of spider bird   You should note that the trinket (mana trinket) is pretty bad when you don't have mana issues. It's good to have for when you can make it work but most of the time it just sits in my bags and I use other trinkets for more throughput. It's also impossible to use on certain fights (good luck using it on Ursoc) so you should definitely have another trinket for backup    I personally like the trinket off dragons (crit stat and absorb shield proc) and it seems to do ~4-5% of my healing. The trinket off Ursoc is also very good but unreliable because it's proc based so you may never actually make use of it when it goes off.     I'm currently using an Anti-Nethertoxin for my second trinket since I don't have the Ursoc trinket, but I don't like it very much. It gives OTHER people haste which I thought would be amazing to help DPS but it just doesn't proc enough to make it worth it. The heal is also only ~1% of my healing.
Isn't it just great r/[redacted] does not have ONE SINGLE post on this? Actually i lied, i saw exactly one post on it. had about 500 upvotes, but 60% upvoted. And the comment section? Everyone saying o'keefe was a hack [SEP] > Everyone saying o'keefe was a hack  Democrats completely (and predictably) choosing the wrong way to deal with O'Keefe & Wikileaks.   They're foolishly not "getting out in front of" the issue. You can't ignore this giant story for 3 more weeks. Way too much content and story line - so as they ignore it, it builds beyond the media's ability to control.    So now youse can't leave.
oh that sounds so awesome. diamond drill with efficiency and fortune.. this will happen.  thank you much! [SEP] >diamond drill with efficiency and fortune  I have an efficiency IV books, but a mining drill is almost uncontrollable with one. As far as fortune goes, enchant a drill with fortune and put it in a tubestuff block breaker. Then you can place silktouched ores with a deployer. 64 redstone ore is **much** more compact than a few stacks of redstone.
First of all, 90% of your complaints come from 1 or 2 players about the lions being dirty and "trying to injure players".  That is 1 foot stomp, keep clinging to it though, thats fine.  The actual leaders of our team, Matt, Calvin and Nate are among the classiest guys in the league and uphold the game of football to a higher standard than most.  So you can relax with all your crying about how we hit late and after the whistle, that is not our philosophy or how they play.  It is just some events blew up by the media to get ratings, and you eat right into them like a fat kid in a all you can eat ice cream sunday buffet.  And also, if you were treated like shit and laughed at for years, never respected, wouldn't you have some fire in you as well?  I sure as hell would.  But, I will let the season play out as it will, I believe in Matt.  As long as he is upright there isn't anyone we can't beat.  And after we beat you this year, all your stars on that precious defence of yours are going to be another year older, another year slower, and your decline will follow. [SEP] > Matt, Calvin and Nate are among the classiest guys in the league and uphold the game of football to a higher standard than most  Yeah, Matt throwing down a guy by the back of the helmet is classy. He could have broke his neck. That is another mental lapse which is a result from a coach who is immature and self-centered.
While I approve of Mulcair's stated aim, I have to wonder how it would be received if Jeb Bush called up Putin during the U.S. Election to ask him to pull out of Ukraine. Shouldn't direct foreign policy be left to elected leaders? [SEP] Heads of mission, while perhaps not on a first name basis, will have often met opposition politicians at least once at a social function or in a courtesy briefing. This is normal. They will often exchange generic comments about improving relations between their two countries and having an open door, so I'd imagine that Mulcair's team took that literally and decided to schedule a call. The Egyptian embassy is also aware that there is an election going on and that placating the people who are most likely to make exaggerated claims about this situation is necessary.   > called up Putin during the U.S. Election to ask him to pull out of Ukraine.  [If he was the nominee, maybe not Putin, but presidential candidates campaigning overseas is not unique. It was Barack Obama that did it for the first time.] (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/obama-s-berlin-speech-people-of-the-world-look-at-me-a-567932.html)