Lurker > SKARDAVNELNATE

I don't believe any past event actually occurred. It's just false memory to give context to what's happening at the current moment.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Mead posted...

you are way too old to act like this

I still have my wit. I'm not going senile yet.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Zangulus posted...

You are against making slavery illegal simply because it might not be that big of a problem.

I'm not opposed to making slavery illegal. I asked why individual states need to have their own laws against it when the US constitution already does that.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

The conservative are just showing who they are on the inside. Isn't that what the song is meant to encourage?
Also I thought they didn't like to be called the Q-word. Is this one of those situations where they took it back and changed the meaning so that's it's no longer offensive to say?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

EvilMegas posted...

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know why you would want to make it illegal to marry kids, dude.

Right, obviously there's concern that they aren't prepared to make life effecting decisions. I was not previously aware that potential trafficking was also involved.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

mrduckbear posted...

wears each pair of underwear at least 3-10 times before washing them.

How did he arrive at that number? Suppose he puts on underwear on Monday and is still wearing them on Wednesday. I would count that as one long stretch of wearing them.

Now if he took them off. Put on another pair. Took those off. Put the first pair back on. I would count that as wearing them two times.

So is he putting on dirty underwear after he's already taken them off?
Why not just keep wearing the underwear you already have on, in that case?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

EvilMegas posted...

Shit like this is why I got you tagged as CP enthusiast

So asking questions about a subject is somehow the same as defending it.
Anyway I was satisfied with the response that they are not equally capable of saying "no" to the marriage vows as the component that leads to potential trafficking.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

wolfy42 posted...

ends up being $3 more for service fee, 6$ more for delivery

Why are these separate things? Delivery is the service.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Can they pick which deliveries they go on? Maybe instead of spending an hour going on one delivery take more close range deliveries in that time.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes, as a child, you dont know you can say no.

I expect this happens quite often to adults as well. Does this also call into question the ability for other people to make a contract?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

adjl posted...

if the person simply says that they didn't want to be married

Maybe this is the part I don't get. If they are allowed to make a legally binding contract in the first place that implies they're capable of making an informed decision for themselves. So when the person performing the ceremony asks "do you take this person to be your lawfully wedded..." they are expected to be equally as capable of saying "no".

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Blightzkrieg posted...

It became partisan only to stroke Trump's ego, it's not like anybody made money off covid denial.

Maybe I misunderstood what you're trying to say here. Which party was denying that covid was a real threat? I think both parties wanted to use it to their own benefit. Democrats to use fear to push any regulation they wanted, and Trump to use anger at China to make them more of an aggressor to the US.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Zangulus posted...

I would ask you if you realized the board was a hate haven of gamefaqs violations

I was invited to it fairly recently. The impression I got was posts there were more critical of leftist politics. Nothing about it stood out to me as "a hate haven" or violating site rules.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Zangulus posted...

Imagine thinking that more than 0 or even 0 isnt enough of a reason to explicitly outlaw the ownership of people.

The US constitution already precludes that. Why would individual states need their own law regarding it?

adjl posted...

laws that permit child marriage are frequently exploited to get around trafficking laws.

I didn't associate the two things at all. I thought we were discussing whether they were capable of making a life long commitment, or if they were prepared for the divorce if that didn't work out.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

That wasn't what I was saying at all. Those are laws that already exist. In terms of effort put forth I don't see their removal any more pressing than the needless creation of new laws.

For example, it would be problematic if elephants were kept as pets in urban areas. But no one does that so there's no reason to make it a law. Similarly if people once did it to warrant a law but have stopped there's no reason to put forth the effort to remove it either

So far no one has been able to tell me how often the original subject happens.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

That's why I asked. I'd expect both things to be rather obscure. Am I wrong?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Far-Queue posted...

Rhode Island governor to sign bill banning child marriage

Cacciato posted...

that reminds me of Mississippi finally banning slavery a couple of years ago.

Was there a lot of that going on? I don't think you need a law about it unless it happens frequently enough that it causes a problem.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

I would just be excited to have found someone to be in a relationship with.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

LinkPizza posted...

Makes sense. People started basically messaging the mods about the board...

That sucks. If people don't like a board just don't visit it.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

https://imgur.com/Qt73oiJ

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Humble_Novice posted...

has been deleted

Okay, now it has. I had just posted there last night. Now I can't get to it.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

I never want people to get cancelled.
I do want celebrities/companies to stay out of politics.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Are there any places that aren't drive through only?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Maybe one was federal and one was state.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Is it the subject of an X-Files episode?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

mrduckbear posted...

Do you think he's gonna make an attractive female

I thought male and female were separate from gender.
Also, aren't there something like 70 other genders? How certain are you that he's just going between the 2 major genders?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Humble_Novice posted...

has been deleted

This is false. I can still access it.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Or he succeeded in contacting the makers of the simulation.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

adjl posted...

I dunno about you, but I generally interpret "your possessions" as indicating ownership.

I interpret "your possessions" as things you are in possession of. The site owner was in possession of ROMs.

Zeus posted...

So to bring back your insurance argument, you're basically suggesting if somebody broke into an apartment where you were storing something for a friend, you should be personally compensated for that lost property instead of the friend?

There's a chain of quotes you aren't applying context from. I was asking if adji thought that.

Zeus posted...

he'd be breaking the law because that violates copyright law.

Laws are made by people. People are imperfect. Thus the laws are imperfect. I think the damages being awarded are an example of that.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

It's another attempt to bring up something completely different.

You set the criteria. You indicated it was wrong for media to be consumed without paying for it. I presented another scenario which fits that criteria. Either it is wrong in both scenarios or your criteria is faulty and doesn't help to understand why you object to it.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Sitting at home with a few friends is not the equivalent of distributing things on the internet.

I think you've gotten confused. You specified the consumption of media as being wrong earlier. Not the distribution of media. The site owner is to the Blu-ray owner as site visitors are to the friends. The former distributes, the latter consumes.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Go to a movie theater, ask them if they just buy a tape and let their friends watch it. Maybe try asking hbo how their movie streaming works

I think people have to pay at a theater.
I think people have to pay for HBO.
You are again focusing on the distributors of media when you started out arguing about the consumption of media. Does this indicate that you are being disingenuous?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

Oh cool another disingenuous argument.

Unlike what you're doing it's an actual argument. But since you can't think of a way to counter it you treat it as if it isn't valid.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

That is insane.

Think of it this way. A group of people get together to watch a movie. Only one of them owns the blu-ray. Regarding everyone in the group that is not that person the media is being consumed without paying for it. What is wrong about this?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

You have yet to address the only point I've attempted to make, that media is being consumed without paying for it and those who consumed it had no right to it.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

He didn't own anything on his site.

That's not a requirement that adji put forth.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

adjl posted...

If your livelihood depends on selling exact duplicates of your possessions? Yes.

Wasn't that the ROM site owners livelihood? I don't know how he was making $30,000 a yearnow from it but it sounds like you're saying he should be compensated for the shuttering of his site.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Depends on what sorts of things we are talking about and what rights you have to them.

I own comic books. I have the right to sell them. Some of them are rather pricey on ebay.
Am I entitled to compensation for the duplicator not buying my copy?
Am I entitled to compensation for decrease in value now that my copy is slightly less rare?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Full Throttle posted...

https://i.imgur.com/jwcI2uu.jpg

Thanks. Now I don't need to spend $100.

MondoMan180 posted...

Wait a minute actually...does he own the rights, or person who took photo?

I think it's like patents. It goes to whoever claims it first. You could claim it. I could claim it.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

????

Let's say instead of taking everything I own someone makes an exact duplicate of everything I own. I still have have everything I had before. Should I be compensated for this?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're trying to compare something you own being used in an illegal manner to literally nothing happening.

I'm trying to compare literally nothing happening to literally nothing happening.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

I think you misspelled Albuquerque. Here, have this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE37e1eK2mY

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

BlackScythe0 posted...

That isn't what damages are.

The law is kind of asinine. They're being awarded for potential loses, not actual loses. Imagine if insurance worked that way. My place wasn't broken into but it could be, pay me for the value of everything that wasn't stolen.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

I would have thought the point of the challenge was for publicity. As in they should want to attract competitive eaters so other people think they have a shot at winning too, that draws in more business, which turn generates more money than what they payout.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

faramir77 posted...

I don't understand why Nintendo doesn't just offer their own service

I don't think people at Nintendo know what the intent is. To them it's something they've heard about but never experienced. At least that's what trying to purchase a game on 3DS has taught me.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

There are plants around me?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

I don't recall sorted being used in the 90s.

I think of slang as words that are only used in certain groups. The words she's talking about are rather common on their own. She's describing a specialized usage of those common word.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

in an effort to denounce inequality.

How does it do that?

this was done to demand that female organs be treated as well as male organs

I feel like I'm missing some cultural aspect of this. Does Paris have a lot of penis statues?

and to bring awareness to widespread sexual illiteracy.

I suppose this is considerate of the people who have never seen one before. I'm not sure if the impression one that's 16' feet tall will give them is the right one though.

thedeerzord posted...

Turns out there is a God

But which God?

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Only one I've seen is Army of the Dead.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

That would be funny. Lucifer becomes so full of himself that he thinks he can read minds and see into the future. Then he spends so long convincing himself of it that it actually happens.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

Zeus posted...

Considering that 73% of the US is white, it's a pretty racist policy.

I wondered about this. At first it was about getting representation in media to match population demographics. At what point do you get to critisize them for over representing a minority degraphic and excluding the majority from getting their due representation.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB

My thoughts on the season ending...

Spoilers

There is a reason why Hell no longer needs a warden, but that reason is never shared. With how vague God is and how everyone interprets what they expect from that vagueness it may be that Hell never needed a warden and everyone just thought it did, and Goid let them think that. This can also explain why nothing happened until Father Kinley alerted the demons.

Michael is shown as both a master manipulator and an idiot that has no idea what he's doing. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on self actualization as shown by his scar and loss of his wings. The loss and return of their wings is what lead Lucifer and Amenadiel to understand it. Yet at the same time Michael understands self actualization well enough to plant the idea that causes God to start losing control of his powers. He's not able to utilize it himself but also his plan to convince God to retire hinges on it.

There is no indication that anyone would receive God's abilities. Micheal expects to become all powerful. Lucifer expects to be able to change the rules of Hell. God took his power with him to the other universe. He never indicated a successor would get a new set of powers. The idea of a successor started with Lucifer and Amenadiel. It may be that God never intended to name one. The angels would have to work together to fill in for him since no individual would be able to.

I don't think God was manipulated. I think he planned to retire and, as Lucifer asked, everything else was part of that plan.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB