Try increasing your salt intake. You can test this with water + salting to taste. If you have positive results invest in salt tablets to pick up on other micronutrients you’re also missing.
I’m not judging but this reads, to me, like you’re bitter. The majority of men and women may pursue mates based on superficial qualities but there are plenty who do not.
I separated three years ago, divorced recently and met someone a month after deciding to date. I used Bumble. It was easy. She’s beautiful, smart (smarter than me), kind, honest, athletic, hard working, loving and a wonderful mother to her 10 Y.O.
I live well below my means and only after commiting to a relationship did I realize just how poor she thought I was. My advice to you is that any women who would pursue a man for his looks and money isn’t worth your time. If you can’t find what you’re looking for you either need to work on your self or you need to look somewhere else.
Again, I’m not judging but the idea that enforced monogamy is better for society leads me to believe that you’re the problem.
I usually try not to enter in to arguments where I know I won’t change my mind. I’m wasting the time of someone who disagrees with me but is willing to exchange ideas. “frankly, fucking stupid” reads like you’re not interested in hearing contrary evidence. It saddens me.
Yes, she said it. From what I can tell you've used what she said out of context. The way you used the quote implies that Oprah Winfrey wants these people to die or is imploring other people to kill the subjects of her quote. If you did not intend to use the quote out of context I'd suggest, in the future, using the full quote. When given the full context of the quote your post makes no sense.
Sure but harassment isn't. My understanding is that all of this is optional. As long as anonymous accounts are not abused there's no reason to filter them out. If anonymous accounts are abused people will filter them out. Thus the only people we have to blame are the abusers of anonymous accounts.
Just want to point out that here in the US we don't require anyone to graduate high school. In most cases minors are required to attend school. My point is that, in the past, minors weren't able to chose for themselves. Instead the guardian often chose to make the child work thus continuing a cycle of poverty.
Devil's advocate. Brandishing a firearm i.e. displaying but not drawing it could be considered an 'inactive' defense. Knowing someone owns an iPhone might dissuade one from attempting theft.
I haven't read the article and am not interested in attacking the article. Some of us don't believe that others (not all) are arguing in good faith. I don't believe we'll stop talking about firearms till firearms are illegal to own. For example; I believe that if firearm related suicide was reduced to zero we'd still be arguing about firearm safety.
I'm all for increasing the amount of data we gather and research we do in relation to firearms. I'm all for making intelligent decisions based on the data we gather. From where I'm sitting we don't make decisions based on the data we have (on either side).
This largely feels like bizarro abortion argument where both sides of the abortion argument are now arguing the exact opposite when it comes to firearms.
When I joined the Army I weighed ~ 120lbs. Less than a year later I had completed basic training, advanced infantry training, jump school and the Ranger Indoctrination Program (programs completed in the order listed). After graduating RIP I served in special operations as an Airborne Ranger.
I'll never forget something that happened during my first training mission with the 75th Ranger Regt. After several hours of rafting and patrolling I was walking up a hill carrying a full load plus an M4. I was sucking hard, covered in sweat and my whole body was on fire. A tabbed E4 walks by me, not a drop of sweat on him, and up the hill like it's nothing. He looks over at me, as he's walking by, and says "you're carrying that and I'm carrying this." He was carrying a 240G (probably 5x the weight of my M4). I leave it up to you to form your own interpretation of his words.
~5 years in Regiment I weighed 170lbs and could run through everything I did my first deployment carrying twice the weight.
I generally read comments here to see if an article is worth reading. I bounced back and forth on this article.
I agree with you that the article is under generalized. It really has little to do with Apple. I also feel that the arguments are misplaced; the "46 million Americans [who] are on food stamps" probably feel that those of us who own Apple (and other similar tech.) products are on the other side of the income gap.
How about this gem: "How dare they—followed by near-instantaneous submission. In short, it charted the pattern (half-serious critical recoil, more centric smart takes, and finally, open-armed acceptance) of just about every major Apple hype cycle ever." If we look at the press who follow this cycle then the article falls squarely in the "How dare they" phase.
I'd suggest skipping the article. There's nothing in the article to suggest that any of this is valid and instead isn't just part of the clickbait trend towards "major Apple hype cycle[s]" perpetrated by journalists.
I didn't get that this was a joke. It's my fault, I read the first few lines and thought that you were serious and that it was a waste of time to continue reading. I actually came here to write, "this must be a joke."
> "picked the wrong guy to mess with" and "weren't ready for my $massive_gun" is commonplace. It's so common that it's a well established meme: http://i.imgur.com/TJUNFCg.jpg
That's a fantasy of violence not a fantasy of self-defense.
> As for your dismissal of a scientific article just based on worlds you don't like the look of and findings you don't agree with, well I think that speaks for itself.
I'm assuming you meant words not worlds (I'm not picking on your spelling just making sure I'm haven't misunderstood what you've written). The article is behind a paywall. The citation is pretty damning and doesn't look impartial at all. These aren't words I don't; like these are words that indicate a bias and I think I made it clear that I cannot disagree with the findings because I have not read the article. I'm assuming that you have read the article because you're calling it science.
The fact that you don't see these words as a warning sign and that you've made this personal tell me something as well.
Look, I've attended a CHL course. The course was a sham, there were people that had never used a firearm before and I did not have a high regard for the intelligence of the people attending. On the other hand I know plenty of people, who do have a CHL, who are responsible, who do not look forward to having to use a firearm and who carry a firearm solely because they see it as a tool, that one day, might help in the defense of themselves or others.
The image you linked to doesn't, as far as I can tell, depict a self-defense fantasy (again what is that). You'll notice the comic is far from, "the civilian with a handgun in a chaotic shootout." Instead it's riffing on the fact that active-shooter situations are hard and the misconception that the act of self-defense will not result in injury to bystandards. Call it a fantasy of self-defense if you'd like; not a self-defense fantasy.
I think the argument is that assault rifle has become a politically charged label that is meaningless. A rifle with a detachable magazine is just a rifle.
Generally I agree that using this sort of thing to get a 'gotcha' moment out of it is a waste of time. The problem is that context doesn't help me understand what a person means when they say assualt rifle. I've had someone describe an assault rifle as anything that's specifically made to kill people.
I didn't read the article you linked to and I'm not trying to contradict anything you've written. There are a few words in the citation that lead me to believe the article is biased or that they ended up with a particularly bad sample; indulge, hegemonic masculinity and fantasy. Also who fantasises about self-defense? I mean violence I get but how do you fantasies about self-defense?
Where did the label "gun patriot" come from? I'm always interested with how people label themselves/others. This one is particularly interesting, to me, because I can't figure out where this comes from or why you're using it.
I'm pro-second amendment and I care very much out our liberties. In fact I believe that the same arguments made for and against the second amendment can also be made for and against the others you've mentioned.
Are those in favor of gun control also in favor of controlling speech, religion and assembly?
I own a few firearms and don't play with any of them.
