Lurker > RyukSan

I just get a kick out of the concept of these people at home looking at the tip function and thinking :

"Those poor drivers...I won't tip them for their own good! I'm such a caring person!"

Just don't complain when your food gets to you cold. You could have tipped but chose not to, putting you at a disadvantage against people that do tip.

Then how would not tipping hurt the company if they're literally telling you that they don't care about the drivers?

No one has actually articulated how not tipping instigates change. The greedy company still makes their money. No one who needs to lose is losing.

https://twitter.com/_SlimGoodieeee/status/1719118368396161223

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/6/5/AAazv8AAE_bN.jpg

It's so crummy that there are people out there this day and age that still don't tip...

Lmao not reading beyond this bullshit. sorry i'm not doing your little dance pal. you've already ducked out on me, tucked, and clucked first. i don't have to answer to shit. and what kind of lame ass gotcha attempt is this anyways?

anyways i dont know why these bleeding hearts care so much about these thieves and criminals who constantly break the law and victimize society, yet they won't even throw them a couple bucks or give them some food or a place to stay, yet they seem to expect it to be the rest of societies problem to deal with. .

sorry pal but society also has a family, mouths to feed, bills to pay, and hardships to endure as well. nowhere in the law does it state that they are subject to victimization, theft and robbery, just because little johnny doesnt want to go get a job and he'd rather go robbing. fortunately there is a place for these very people who cannot function in society, and do not belong in society. it's called prison.

The average person was against the Civil Rights Movement and its methods of grinding public life to a halt. "But the movement was justified and everyone they inconvenienced was racist!" is just a way to sugarcoat things to keep it as some idealized relic of the past. Like the cause was so uniquely moral that everyone agreed and understood that public institutions must be temporarily impeded to effect change. That's not reality. The white moderate of that time was making the same "disrupting the public is a good way to turn people against you! Target those who are actually responsible for your problems!" arguments we see about every protest today.

The average person was against the Civil Rights Movement and its methods of grinding public life to a halt. "But the movement was justified and everyone they inconvenienced was racist!" is just a way to sugarcoat things to keep it as some idealized relic of the past. Like the cause was so uniquely moral that everyone agreed and understood that public institutions must be temporarily impeded to effect change. That's not reality. The white moderate of that time was making the same "disrupting the public is a good way to turn people against you! Target those who are actually responsible for your problems!" arguments we see about every protest today.

So what's the right way to protest? Specifically? Kneeling at a fucking football game caused the biggest uproar of all time and that neither hurt nor impacted anyone's life in literally anyway.

In my example, he was running for president. Everyone needs to be aware that a potential candidate for office abuses animals, and should lead you to worry what he would do to people under his administration. Learning the guy who could run your country and life for 4 years has zero care or empathy for living creatures he directly says he loves should impact and motivate you to vote against him.

And even if you're stuck in traffic for 10 extra minutes, you learned something valuable about the potential future of your country through it. Hopefully that crisis helps overcome your mild annoyance at being inconvenienced.

That's what these protestors want to accomplish.

But you seem to think that the overriding danger of <thing that's being protested> will only garner opposition to the protesters because of an inconvenience. If that were true, though, MLK would never have gotten traction, and Gandhi would have never been successful, to name to two most famous examples.

Simple-minded people who don't follow politics will probably encounter a protest, even if it's one blocking the road, and hear of a new thing they weren't paying attention to before, coming to new awareness of an issue.

Just an example I can think of that would be easy to garner sympathy for.

"Why are these people blocking the road? The f*** is going on? [...] Romney did what to his dog? That mother-f***er!"

it's neat how many low active post users are coming out just to say hi to me and tell me why people shouldn't protest.

people won't like it

that's the fucking point. what part of that aren't you guys getting? solid snake and ryuk, shut the fuck up and go back on timeout lol. 20 active posts between the two of you. my absolute word.

low-thought take. what good is a protest if it doesn't actually obstruct anything?

So if you made a movie and somebody came and said that scene you put in your movie was unnecessary you wouldnt be like well its my movie so how about you fuck right off

because thats what I would say

No scene is unnecessary if the filmmaker wanted it in there. Its their art, they can do with it as they please

I don't think there's a age limit at this point..

Wtf is peak DBZ.

Stop the nostalgia lol. 2 minutes of a badass quote is not enough to be the best anime ever. Especially when you need a specific iteration of the damn thing to even compete.

Frieza saga is not the amazing arc yall remember it to be lol.

I didn't say it makes things better, Mr. Honesty.

I said you'd have an understanding that wouldn't lead you to babbling in circles ignoring other posters that don't agree with you.

Oh gee, I suggested you read the text that describes the God you're making statements about. How insane an idea is that? Reading? How will I live with myself?

This is just middle schooler Bible bashing.

No, you're definitely the guy having trouble with this. The Bible is something you should probably take a peek at before getting into these kinds of conversations.

God did not create rape. Humans created rape with free will. I have explained the paradox twice now and you keep deflecting to "no God made rape" without explaining how he made rape.

How does an infinite being create a system for limited beings while also maximizing positive benefit upon sentient beings with the obstacle of it having to be limited?

I've illustrated what this could look like earlier. Please go back. I'm not repeating myself.

Already addressed. Please read the answers to your question on the previous page.

Again, already addressed.

I am not arguing in favor of the Christian God. You have a lot of work to do. Please don't ask me to repeat answers to questions I've answered already especially when you are not up to speed on where the argument even is. You are assuming my position and arguing from there. That is disingenuous.

It doesn't have to be the Christian God. These things exist in spite of that.

Again, how do you get rid of these things? Without death, the world would be overpopulated and all the resources would run out. Unless you expect there to be infinite resources, and then you open the floodgates with "well why didn't God just make us infinite beings as well", which to me sounds like a burden considering we would all have infinite negative energy beyond our comprehension. So as it stands, we live in a limited world. Death needs to be a part of it in order for us to not suffer for eternity. We are not even sure if reincarnation or an afterlife exists, so death could purely be a transition stage in our consciousness.

How do you get rid of rape? We need sex to reproduce. We have free will to reproduce. By eliminating our free will in this case, we remove consent. How is that any better? Imagine you are forced to have sex without any input. We get to choose, and unfortunately that means we have to deal with horrible people like rapists. Again, logically pick a scenario where free will exists without rape. You can't, unless you force sex or eliminate sex all together, which is a slippery slope to remove love and intimacy all together.

Everyone loves to blame God for all this shit when it's humans that create most of these evils, and as for the rest (natural disasters, disease, etc) it happens because if they didn't, the universe itself would be immutable and we wouldn't be able to interact with it. Nobody considers the potential hell invoked without free will, with limited free will, or free will to engage with absolutely nothing.

@Gladius_ I promise I'll get back to you, just dealing with the usual disinginuous arguments.

Shes heavy though. Not absurdly so but damn those camera angles on the first few pics. What do?

Here's a thought experiment. What aspects of free will would you remove from the equation that would prevent your loaded example? How do you logically go about doing that? And if free will doesn't exist, the philosophical question becomes - does it even matter? That's a pretty cynical outlook.

The victims of those bad decisions didn't make the decision to fucking die, but I guess who cares about their wants and their dreams? Hopefully they were on God's good side before they were murdered!

There's no reason to speak as if your beliefs have any scientific backing. You're literally guessing that you not only picked the right God, but interpreted his unknowable word correctly. Why does religious belief get to conveniently exist outside of our comprehension, outside of the laws of our universe that everything else must follow?

I say elves don't exist and everyone goes "No shit. We'd have found elves by now".

I say God doesn't exist and I get "You're a rude, judgmental jerk that can't think outside your narrow human lens! Of course we can't prove God with science or the senses! He's beyond our minds!"

Do you want free will? Because this is how you abolish free will.

I'm tired of the "suffering exists so God doesn't love you" argument.

back then the roles reversed on ideals.

the republican's back then was democrat ideal
the democrats back then was republican ideal.

We can't prove God exists, not that we can't prove God doesn't exist.

Manipulating spacetime requires manipulating a state of change. Change cannot go faster than the speed of light. You cannot work a wormhole to leave the universe.

Not only this, but you also wouldn't want a god who was the exact opposite, which meant anytime you said (or thought) anything against him you would immediately be struck down.

Most of faith is also being thankful that the current setup is willing to forgive, even if you sometimes think he is doing absolutely nothing. The alternative is that you couldn't even glare at a woman's backside without being struck down for the sin you might be thinking.

*Eyeroll.gif*

That's a pretty big mistake, though. Nintendo could be a publisher, but if the developer is Single Man In Mom's Basement Industries, then... Yeah, that makes a huge difference, suddenly.

Also, people actually liked the first NASB, I believe. It was just lacking in content.