FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
Ok, can you seriously think that any functional adult doesn't have three friends? When I got my ccw permit in PA, I had too many friends who wanted to be the reference. And I have trouble thinking of a person who doesn't have three friends who should have a gun.
But we aren't talking about socially adept. We're talking about three unrelated people vouching for you. Coworkers. Landlord. The waitress at your favorite diner. Your pastor.
It's not that hard.
Is your opinion at all altered by the other comments pointing to contractual provisions that were not reached?
the dead schoolchildren who, but for recent immigration from Africa, would likely still be alive.
Speak plainly.
This is true only in some trivial butterfly effect sense that is beneath notice, if you mean some deeper theory about it say it out loud.
If only there were some way to figure this out like watching the fights.
Myself. If she'd refused to participate I'd respect the decision and my default is against male participation in combat sports, and athletics generally. I was very anti Caster Semenya, for example. But watching the brief fight it was clear that I was being told something that didn't make any sense.
I live in Pennsylvania and I can think of five people in NJ and another dozen in NY who would offer me a reference for a permit if I called right now. I don't get what you're talking about. This is an insane assertion.
I'm an opponent of gun rights for felons. I'm an opponent of gun rights for non citizens. And yes, I'm at best neutral on the gun rights of isolated loners.
Anyone can just join a gun club and within a month they'll have two guys willing to vouch for them.
Some days I feel like my shadow's casting me Some days the sun don't shine Sometimes I wonder what tomorrow's gonna bring When I think about my dirty life and times One day I came to a fork in the road Folks, I just couldn't go where I was told Now they'll hunt me down and hang me for my crimes If I tell about my dirty life and times I had someone 'til she went out for a stroll Should have run after her It's hard to find a girl with a heart of gold When you're living in a four-letter world And if she won't love me then her sister will She's from Say-one-thing-and-mean-another's-ville And she can't seem to make up her mind When she hears about my dirty life and times
Are the ideological motivations of spree killers politically relevant, or are they irrelevant?
Irrelevant. Certainly irrelevant in the sense that as little attention should be paid to them as possible. We shouldn't know the names or manifestos of people who murder children. It encourages child murder.
I hold that belief personally, but even if I didn't: I'd still defer to the actual parents of the actual Christian school kids murdered and say that if they want to keep the manifesto out of the press to protect their own sanity, then that deference seems fitting and proper. If they said that they wanted it out there, they could post it themselves on a website and there ain't shit the Blue Tribe can do about it. The motivating force behind this isn't some nebulous cabal of NYT editorial staff, it's the actual parents of the actual children.
Either way, I don't really think this is a serious, chronic problem. Paranoid schizo blue tribers tell me that black and trans people are murdered in the streets by racists, paranoid schizo red tribers tell me that white kids are regularly beaten to death in inner city school districts by bloodthirsty gangs of migrants. The issue such as it is seems to be immune to media bias, red tribers are just as likely to imagine political violence as blue tribers. Whose manifesto gets the most airtime seems less related to media bias than to how effectively they broadcast that manifesto prior to the shooting, if the trans whatever had livestreamed the shootings then it would be out there regardless of copyright.
If anything, I more associate talking about motivations with Red Tribe speakers post-shooting, the Blue Tribe mainstream just wants to keep the focus on guns guns guns. Who cares why he did it when it offers me an opportunity to take away someone's constitutional rights?
Dude, there are literally thousands of people being removed from the country weekly who, in the world we lived in last year, were in no danger of deportation. Many had some form of legal or protected status, others had simply been living here for decades.
The world now is, for those people, completely unlike the one they lived in last year.
So yeah, research into alternatives is a reasonable thing to start doing on the off chance we see similar changes by next year.
Then you are an opponent of gun rights.
I'm an opponent of gun rights for certain people, yes. As almost everyone is. You don't get to just announce some purity test, any more than BLM gets to tell me that it's Racist to want a police force.
Yes, you are more socially adept than many.
I'm a weird loner who hangs out on the motte. If I can do it anybody (sane) can do it.
And what the heck is the point of joining a gun club if you don't have a gun?
You borrow a gun at the range until you're ready to buy one of your own.
Sure but then they aren't enshittifying your experience, because your experience doesn't exist except in the form they hand it to you.
I don't find it wrong to watch something without paying for it, or even to do so while avoiding the ads. But it's obvious to me that one has no right to complain that one's ability to do so has been unjustly limited, as it had no right in it to start.
If the freemium game were suddenly moved to a pay model, I wouldn't find that a wrong action by the developer.
Youtube's free to choose a profit model that doesn't enshittify my experience of their service, if they find that adblock is making them struggle.
And my point is what right do you have to any experience of their service without paying for it?
...I did watch the fights and offered analysis in OP...
I truly can't underrated why everyone is going off priors and theories and medical studies when we have the real thing right in front of us to be observed. It's like imagining German generals in 1916 still talking about the Schlieffen plan and the concentration of men/meter to carry on vigorous attacks.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If she has overwhelming physical advantages, such that they are unfair to allow in competition, then it would show up in her fight with Broadhurst. It doesn't, Broadhurst bullies her around the ring. I've never heard of a hormone that doesn't work against the Irish. That's the most objective evidence we can have about unfairness in boxing: the boxing!
I guess I see your point that we could all refrain from any discussion on the topic absent personal knowledge, but the standard of proof has to place the onus somewhere, and there's significant moral hazard in a "believe all women accusers" standard. It seems morally obvious to me that the requirement should be on the party crying unfairness to offer evidence of unfairness. Given that the record in the ring is mixed at best and offers no clear support for disqualifying Khelif, additional evidence must be offered on that side.
What evidence am I supposed to have if we're not trusting institutions? Am I supposed to go grope her? The evidence I offered was the analysis of the fights she was in, if you want to dispute that evidence it is on you to offer evidence that she is intersex.
I don't care if all men can do it, I care if any man can do it.
By 30 one can absolutely be a teacher, forklift operator, or cop. In fact I think in most places you can't become a cop much after 30. 18-30, which I guess is what you mean by under 30?, captures a huge number of men (about 16%) who are in college, and effectively earn nothing.
Yes these men are single for any number of reasons. Do we ask the same question about your million good women? ((I should note that my age range for the men was under 40, as it seems like more of a match))
If a lot of these men were gay, it would just make my point even better, there would be even fewer straight men competing for those good women. I don't think women care about past divorces in a man.
None of your objections answers the questions raised: what part of this do you think is either not a thing your hypothetical good woman would look for, or not a thing under the control of the men? Sure most men don't meet these standards, THAT'S THE POINT. And you can do it easily!
It seems weird to say that I am free to punch other people (who don’t want to be punched) any time I like since they can always get their own back by slugging me in return.
But I didn't say that it was ok, just that it was different; sticking with your metaphor, there's a big difference between my punching someone who could realistically punch me back, and me punching someone who realistically could not. If I punch another large adult male who could punch me back, it's categorically less bad than if I punch a woman, child, weakling, etc. Escalating a conflict physically when I have escalation dominance is unacceptable, escalating a conflict physically when I do not may fall under acceptable mischief.
I've actually been thinking about this same kind of thing, and these kinds of social settings tend to have lower restrictions when you blend in, precisely out of a sense that you have as much to offer those around you as they have to offer you.
I feel like this isn't a case about your right to a firearm per se, but a case about your right to lie to get into a mental institution and then say "take backsies, I was just trolling" later.
I have no interest in lecturing "men" here, advice when given is given to an individual man. And that man can quite surely make good decisions to achieve the goals set out in the post, and be among the top million marriageable men in America.
I'm trying to do as little as possible to get to a similar number of men as OP's good women.
It's absolutely shocking to me how effeminate our culture has become, that anyone can consider use of a knife or gun to be proportional self defense to an offer of fisticuffs.
I'm here to yeschad and say the world would be a marginally better place if speech or worship required two people to vouch for you.
- Prev
- Next
You'd have to ask the Republican majorities in PA and GA that passed laws allowing for extensive mail in voting while also advocating voter ID laws.
It'll always be something.
More options
Context Copy link