Lurker > Billyionaire

Smashingpmkns posted...

I feel like no one has really answered the question. It's because some anti depressants create an artificial chemical change and your body can handle that poorly. Especially if you're not doing anything else to combat depression. That's basically the simplified explanation I got from someone I know at least.

Is that where the whole "finding the right one" comes in?

Isn't that a bit.... counter-productive?

Did he ever find out?

She was one of everyone's favorite teachers. Major outpouring of support from the whole city

I was warned today for.... I'm still not exactly sure why actually.

So does this mean this is gonna end like some PUBG, battle Royale video game?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Until the overheated, oversized economy is retracted housing will continue to be unaffordable. In the face of a housing crisis, the only thing to do is to create more of it.

This would provide much needed housing, boost local economies, and in some cases may lessen instances of crime in certain areas.

Sticky Fingers rules. Moonlight Mile, Sister Morphine, I Got the Blues, Wild Horses. Every song is great.

Then realize you live alone?

BoomerKuwanger posted...

I think Hendrix was a meh singer/songwriter

I'm not saying your opinion is objectively wrong, but One Rainy Wish? Bold As Love? 1983... A Merman I Should Turn to Be?

Xatrion posted...

If it's never getting better, then what's the point?

My response to this would be: life has always sucked. People have lived in much, much worse conditions than we have across the many centuries of human civilization. And, while death probably would have been an appealing option in those times too, most people would rather have lived than died.

I'm not saying this woman in her own personal circumstance is wrong for choosing to die, but to act like the quality of life in these times is so appalling that death is beginning to seem more appealing as each day passes is... well it's just irresponsible to suggest that to anyone who may be having mental issues.

Big Macs used to be the greatest thing from fast food places. Another good thing was a combo of French fries, apple pie, and coffee.

Galaxy brained people have already switched and accepted the digital revolution. One day the others will join us in the 21st century

I mean you could argue it's racist to some degree, and you'd probably be right. But intent is everything when determining fault. So you have to keep in mind the largely-Japanese devs who made RE5, who are several generations removed from WW2, whose country is not quite as ethnically diverse as ours here in the west, they do not have the same kind of sensitivity to race that we do.

Saying it's racist is one thing, but I would by no means call the people who made the game racist. Misguided, sure. Racist, not without knowing them.

NeonOPPAl posted...

Same. During the pandemic, mine was almost a flat line >_> but it's making good gains now

Think of all the cheap stuff you bought for the last 2 or 3 years while everything was low!! I haven't seen gains that are holding for about that long until the last couple months.

That will be the earliest age to draw the pension but I'm going to leave the 401k alone. Also hoping to find work in the public sector with a retirement program where you become vested after 10 years. Then I'll be drawing two checks every month... just sitting at the house. Not to mention the check for the 401k and, one day, social security.

Thirty dollars?!

no thanks

Zikten posted...

I lost respect for Jerry when I found out he supports the IDF

You're gonna find out you've lost respect for a lot of your favorite celebrities.

I'd sue the driver and, as a minute possibility, sue Doordash too.

Luteo posted...

Yep. A lot of people in the subreddit were saying the pipes weren't up to code if they could be burst so easily

That won't save the driver from civil liability.

You just don't understand locrian mode.

There's a new sheriff in town. All this posting without permits is OVER!

No permit? Let me see your license and insurance info please.

rideshort posted...

What inflation? Last time checked, it's at 3%. Do better next time.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3beed4f4.jpg

Has he addressed runaway inflation that's happened on his watch yet?

You should moderate him

Pikachuchupika posted...

What trials and tribulations? lol

Your life now.

ssjevot posted...

Yeah I already covered that in my response. It's a test bro.

That is a reductive reading. Read the Book of Job again.

bigtiggie23 posted...

I'm willing to bet the Jasper, Alabama police force is confused quite regularly.

I have family in Jasper. The town is nothing but nice people. You can politely fuck off.

ssjevot posted...

Then why did God create it questions always get answered with "it's a test" or "his ways are mysterious and/or unknowable to us". Critical thinking and religion don't usually go together well.

Read the Book of Job for your answer.

GenXer posted...

The burden of proof is upon the person making outrageous claims. You need to prove that something does exist, not the other way around.

That's true. Burden of proof is on the claimant:

CountCorvinus posted...

Gods don't exist.

So he should prove this.

Pikachuchupika posted...

The problem with an afterlife is that it makes life here on Earth meaningless. You're telling me there is a perfect paradise outside of this reality? Why can't I just start there from the beginning? Why put a carrot in front of me?

Why would you be granted the ultimate reward without having the trials and tribulations of earning it first?

I'm not scared by death because I do believe in an afterlife.

Anti-Trump people should be ecstatic about this but they're not seeing the bigger picture. It shouldn't be the state's job to decide whether candidates can run on a ballot as they're much too centralized in power. This is going to prevent some rogue swing state from being able to frustrate a candidate's chances to appear on the ballot in the future.

KI_Simpson posted...

No actually, you being a bad person is a completely legitimate counterpoint to "every adult I knew growing up hit me and I turned out fine!"

You're judging my entire character based on a practice that is legally and morally justified that you happen to disagree with. I happen to believe not spanking your children when they act out is the wrong approach.

It also proves you are lying with your last two points, you very clearly do not believe in accepting others or not thinking you're (or your cult leaders are) above the law.

This is such an inane and uncoordinated response. In what way have I said that I, or anyone else you claim I'm defending, is above the law?

KI_Simpson posted...

On the topic of the only point you supporting that thing doesn't inherently contradict: yes, spanking your children is assaulting them, just like it would be if you did so to an adult.

Incorrect.

KI_Simpson posted...

Making a distinction between spanking and hitting is asinine, especially since going out of your way to make sure your assault on an adult was targeted solely at their ass would if anything just get a sexual harassment charge piled on to your assault.

Woah, now. We're talking about spanking here. You're the one who is introducing the sexual component into this.

ai123 posted...

You don't think instructing people to have their wives murdered is sanctioning domestic violence?

That's correct. The passage you're referring to (of which you only provided a scant few words instead of its entirety) has precisely nothing to do with domesticity, but with dowry and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

ai123 posted...

I could link you to some CDD exegesis which they beli-.

Ah ah ah. Stop with this whataboutism and show me a passage from the Bible that says it is morally acceptable to beat your wife.

ai123 posted...

According to Deuteronomy, you may have your wife murdered if her virginity cannot be proven.

Yeah, pretty heinous.

So were you gonna post some Bible-approved pro-domestic violence passages? Because I still don't see any. Matter of fact I've googled it for you, since I couldn't think of any off the top of my head, and couldn't find any there either.

Euripides posted...

I wish you would have nothing more to say.

Ever

Spoken like a true gentleman.

ai123 posted...

Are you so lacking, so incompetent at human relations, that you cannot conceive of a better way for a child to learn a lesson than through physical violence inflicted by a much bigger, stronger person?

Disgraceful.

I would hear an argument for not spanking the child if this was the first time he ever said those words. But the context of how, when, and to whom he said them, not to mention his comfort with which he said them (telling me that this is not the first time he's done this) makes me positive that this is an appropriate situation to spank him.

ai123 posted...

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church

Seems like the wife can also be subject to the 'whims' of her master.

Indeed. The Bible says the wife should be meek and gentle of spirit, and to be agreeable to the husband.

So did you find any passages where the Bible says to beat her if she acts otherwise?

Glob posted...

Ah, so because the child is your responsibility, that makes it okay to completely fail them in your duty of care. Well that makes perfect sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'd argue not spanking them after they've just told their teacher to shut the fuck up and called her a bitch in front of the rest of their classmates, classmates' parents, school staff, and not mention in front of me would be failing them.

If you disagree then that's your prerogative and we have nothing more to say.

Euripides posted...

And yet you see no hypocrisy there. In fact, logic should dictate that the adult is not as defenseless as a the child, yet you advocate for physically harming the defenseless child

The child is subject to the whims of the parents who, by nature and God and Man's laws, are charged with the rearing of the child. The same is not true of another adult. That is why spanking your child if they've acted out is ok, but spanking your wife would not be.

ai123 posted...

Don't forget, wife beating has Biblical approval too!

Could you quote a passage in the Bible that says beating your wife is okay?

ai123 posted...

What is your intent when you beat a child?

If you've deemed they've acted out, the purpose of spanking them for it is to correct their behavior.

What if you were to beat your wife for the same reason?

The same logic that applies to spanking children when they act out does not logically, morally, or legally extend to spanking another adult. Spanking your wife, if you've deemed she's acted out, would amount to abuse in my eyes.

Euripides posted...

Cool, so I can slap my wife as long as I claim there was no "malicious intent"?

Sounds pretty biblical to me...

If you've slapped your wife for any reason other than self defense, then it's pretty clear to me that malicious intent was involved. So no you may not slap your wife and claim "malicious intent" to be morally or legally justified.

Glob posted...

Its not that youre unclear. Its just that youre wrong.

If you disagree with me that is a-OK buddy but I am not wrong. Malicious intent and possibly intent to do grievous bodily harm is evidenced in abuse, neither of these are present elements in spanking your child after they've acted out.

a mathematically-sound assessment of the value of the first five Arabic numerals???

Glob posted...

Nobody is implying that. Theyre stating it.

Well they're not. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

ssjevot posted...

TC, why did you ignore this? If hitting kids and religion is so important why are Japanese kids so well behaved?

I don't know a lot about Japan but I'm willing to bet that deference to authority has been well-ingrained into their culture (probably because of an obligation to succeed, as evidenced by their much more rigorous education system) and so you find Japanese children act out far less than children of some western countries.

KI_Simpson posted...

First of all, you ended up as a Trump supporter, so saying something is how it was done when you were growing up, in the most generous context, adds no credibility to it.

Ad hominem, much?

Second, the discussion is about hitting your children, whether children should be disciplined was never a topic of discussion outside of a strawman you've been clinging to.

"Hitting your children" and spanking them when they act out come from two entirely different places. I mean, you're implying spanking your children and abusing them are the same thing?

Third, speaking against people spreading hatred is also a responsibility, so that's even more reason "you need to raise your kids" isn't a justification for physical violence.

But you didn't say "speak against" spreading hatred, you said "why shouldn't we punch them?" or something amounting to that. Why should disagreeing with what someone says or believes be a justification for physical violence?

I also don't disagree that it is a parent's obligation to teach their child to accept others. So I'm not sure why we're even arguing about this particular point.

Finally, respecting authority because it's authority is a bad message and is applied arbitrarily even by those who claim to believe in it. See you supporting the treasonous criminal who ignores any rule that inconveniences him.

I disagree. Better they learn how to defer to authority than to live their life thinking they are above it.