domain:abc.net.au
What do these ratings mean, what is the scale?
Riddle me this, Doc Wonder: If you want to keep trim and build muscle, why rely on Ozempic and why not eat clean or at least eat something besides junk food 90% of the time?
Use the bananas for banana bread.
I haven't seen any of those except the first few episodes of Breaking Bad.
This made me realize I've made a mistake. It's "Your Name", 君の名は。
- -2: just terrible
- -1: not recommended, unless you are really into this genre/actor/etc
- 0: meh
- +1: recommended, definitely watch it if you're a fan of the genre
- +2: recommended without reservations
Also, bras are a terrible undergarment for fat women. Bring back the chemise and stays.
Bring back thin/fit/toned women. Make waist great again.
I agree with you on both counts, though for other traits, not the tattoos, though arguably related.
Being fat is equally an indication of poor character as having bad tattoos. If I could, I would avoid working with or hiring fat people.
And while I have all the sympathy in the world for alcoholics, there but for the grace of God, I would never want to put one in a high pressure highly responsible position. It's just not a good fit.
But of course, the lack of qualifications is exactly what leads to loyalty in Trump world. His underlings can't rebel against him, or allow rebellion against him, because under no other regime would their kind be where they are.
From how it’s presented I assume it is a 5-point scale, with the median value of 3 revised downwards to zero.
Jensen Huang
He gets a pass, for the kind of tatto it is. I would find it hilarious if Bill Gates actually looked like this
Not OP, but I imagine there are two reasons why not: Time and anhedonia.
We do have three strikes in some states. But admittedly that's for drug dealers.
You and most other posters on this thread seem to think that women are only interested in dangerous men being dangerous to other people and are obviously in denial about the possibility that dangerous men are dangerous to them.
Oh no, I don't think that at all! In fact I thought about including a line about that in my post - "she could simply have a masochistic streak, she could enjoy the palpable sense of danger" - but I decided not to, because I find that comments are generally more persuasive and attention-grabbing when you only include one bizarre claim instead of multiple.
I do think the "I'm a highly distinguished person to him" aspect of it is probably stronger in the majority of cases than the "I like being in danger myself" aspect, simply because even the most masochistic and self-destructive people still show an aversion to acute physical danger. Although, funny enough I just linked someone downthread to Freud's essay on the death instinct, where he explores how a primordial instinct for self-destruction could coexist alongside an apparently overriding concern for self-preservation. That could certainly be relevant in cases like this.
I don't see why these women have to be lying to themselves about danger to involve themselves with dangerous men.
Typical mindedness fallacy, we don't see the appeal in a dangerous partner, but some women fucking love that shit. They fawn over the only group of men not completely crushed/subservient to our modern "safety" society. They like them prcisely because they are dangerous/murderous/thieving etc..
I mean, the Yakuza tats are a pretty serious commitment/ status signal.
Look at his tats, skulls, really? I'd say he looks trashy and is trying too hard but he has killed a guy, so idk. Looks like a walking trash mural to me.
Digital fast update, Peter and Paul edition.
More options
Context Copy link