Oh god I don’t know if the internet could handle that.
Oh god I don’t know if the internet could handle that.
Funny how civil marriage has nothing to do with raising children. The two are completely separate. This, of course, assumes that there is any validity to your claim, sonfrere, which there is not.
Really, skittle? I’d say that these stories provide noodle with pretty ample reason to worry—surely the people in the stories above would have imagined that the things that happened to them would have been purely hypothetical, as well. And being worried about oneself and thinking of others don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
He said both, actually. So, no typo.
By one set of religious views’ definition, you mean. Hasn’t always been that way, Jack. Take a history class.
That’s true, but to focus on the harm done to the car really misses the point—that this guy CLEARLY overreacted to the point of absurdity by shooting a gun at kids that were retreating. It doesn’t matter WHAT they were doing to his car; they didn’t deserve to be shot at.
You’re seriously blaming the parents and not the psychopath who shot at retreating teens because they might have damaged his car? And parents teach their kids every day. And kids don’t listen. Every. Damn. Day.
Tazzy, when (if) you become a parent, I hope you get blamed for every single thing your kid(s) do that you can’t control. Because that’s what you’re doing here.
Are you fucking serious? You start with “she should have known better” and blame her parents for this? Like a 15 year old can’t sneak out of the house without parents noticing? Impulse schmimpulse. What person in their right mind reacts to teenagers RUNNING AWAY with gunfire? They’d tried the prank, got caught, and were backing off—and he STILL SHOT AT TEENAGERS. There’s no way you can equate what she did with what he did. Not. Even. Close.
That’s not what happened. Did you even read? They were running away after starting the prank, and he shot at their DEPARTING CAR. DERRRRRP.
I care, and I don’t identify as a member of the “LGBT crowd.” I care because I am an ally of human rights, self-esteem, and the belief that the world needs to be a place where people can be who they are without fear.
Think about it from an LGBT person’s perspective though: pretty hard to separate “I think a large part of who you are is sinful” from the idea of being hated. Even if YOU don’t think they mean the same thing, it would be hard to imagine that the person subject to that line of thinking wouldn’t find it hard to swallow. It’s like telling a divorcee, “Don’t worry, I think you getting a divorce was sinful, but you’re okay.” Ehhhhh, hard to sound convincing.
And I don’t think any current servers on here would want to serve you, Jane. In your words: NO WAY!
Jane: while you might have SOME legitimate complaints, they’re buried under a snotty, self-absorbed, self-righteous, holier-than-thou post. As someone said elsewhere, some restaurants don’t want their servers (for whatever reason) writing down orders. If not that, plenty of servers (such as when I was one) would write down the actual food order, but I never, ever, EVER wrote down requests for things after the food came—I could certainly remember “can I have some more ranch?” and “can I get a refill?” Just because your server doesn’t write down those small things doesn’t mean they can’t remember them. And I don’t think anyone would argue that there aren’t bad servers—there are. I’ve been waited on by them and I’ve also worked with them. The reality is, though, that much of the time the things people like you (who are clearly often a bit TOO nit-picky about your dining out experience) blame on a server are not things said server should be blamed for.
Sometimes this is understandable, but also be aware that, when you ask another server to do something for you—who is not your server, and is not essentially getting paid to wait on you—that takes away from their time with their guests, which can hurt their ability to give the best service they can.
As a former server, I wasn’t bothered by the idea of a guest getting my attention (I’m also human; I miss things), but it’s often the way it’s done. I used to be speaking with one table and have the table next to them try to get my attention WHILE I was clearly speaking with other guests. It’s incredibly rude, and it doesn’t WORK. While it is a server’s job to serve, it’s also a guest’s job to, you know, be a decent human being. And you can stay as long as you want, so long as you tip appropriately—the longer you sit there, the less able the server is to get another table in their section, which costs them money in the long run. So it’s fine to hang around, but reflect that in your tipping.
Well, considering he’s been playing football for a good bit, he’s probably sorted this obviously most important aspect of his life out.
You didn’t imagine that a list about games from the 2000s wouldn’t have spoilers?
That doesn’t mean that it’s not stupid that a Pokemon is just a ring of keys. F for creativity.
Joel: procreation is not, in the contemporary world, the sole purpose of sexual congress or marriage. One does not have to have children to be married (that is, there is no requirement to bear children after being wed). Thus, your point is moot. Moving on.
Why do you think that, as a man (which I am too, by the way), you’re “far more likely” to be murdered or assaulted? Is that a statistically demonstrated thing (I’m really asking here. I have no idea what the data is on that.)? The idea of “teaching people not to rape” isn’t to literally sit everyone down in a classroom and establish that raping is bad (you and I and every well-adjusted male already knows this), but to point out that certain behaviors often lead to sexual assaults—and that some rapists don’t even think that what they’ve done would ever be considered sexual assault. And yes, you’re right that we put preventative measures in place to stop those other crimes all the time as part of daily life, but when it comes to rape, we seem to put even greater emphasis on the victim’s “job” of keeping themselves safe, and when it comes to criminal defenses, there’s no crime in which the behavior of the victim is more scrutinized and used against them than in sexual assault cases. You never hear of, say, a robbery victim being accused of “wanting it” for leaving their door unlocked. But you hear about a sexual assault victim’s behavior—scant clothing, leading-on behavior and flirtation and such—all the time. For example: the victim in the Steubenville case was lambasted for being intoxicated to the point of passing out. Well, if someone got that drunk and left their door unlocked and was robbed, would they be “blamed” for being that drunk and inviting the robber in? I doubt it, at least not to the same degree that a sexual assault victim is. I think that’s where the whole argument comes from—we place way more emphasis on what the victims do, when we need to be clear that it is never the victim’s responsibility for stopping crimes from being perpetrated against them.
I’m sorry that happened to you, but could you please provide proof of your “statistics” that show that 75% of rape accusations are false? I have NEVER heard such a statistic, and there’s no way it is actually that high. Citation, please.
It’s only a person’s responsibility not to get drunk in order to avoid personal embarrassment for being so drunk. It is never anyone’s job to prevent their own assault, rape, robbery, or anything else. It doesn’t matter how drunk one chooses to get—that still doesn’t fault them for anything that happens to them while in that state (aside from health problems and self-induced injury, or injury they cause to someone else). Otherwise, nope.
The point, though, is that with crimes like hijacking, shootings, murder, and theft, there’s not NEARLY as much emphasis put on what the potential victim should do to prevent it. When was the last time you saw advertisements for a “murder prevention” class or a “robbery prevention” class? The point is that we put the onus on victims to prevent their rapes, when 100% of the responsibility falls upon the perpetrator.
Those groups did not “wait.” They spoke out. They protested. They stood up against people who were—wait for it—exercising their freedom of speech claiming that blacks were inferior and that women didn’t deserve to vote. And if you could cite your hard evidence that being LGBT is a choice, and demonstrate when you chose to be straight, that would be great too.
Well that’s great that you’ve found solace in your private religion. No one else has to be asked to do that. Also, and this is more curiosity than anything else, do you support legislation making LGBT marriages illegal? (And I’m talking CIVIL marriages, not getting married in a church/religious ceremony.) If so, I can only assume you also want to make it illegal to lie, cheat, dishonor your parents, get divorced, etc.—all those things that are also sins, right?
I did read the policy, and admittedly because it’s from the UK, I don’t know specifically what falls under the purview of “crisps” and (in their parlance) “sweets” and whether “mini Cheddars” would fit that bill. Aside from that, yes, I did read the part where the parents are transferring the kid, out of necessity because the school wants to suspend him over what’s in his damn lunchbox. And how do you know his transferring won’t be traumatic in some way? Do you know him personally and how he feels about his school and his classmates and teachers? You can read the future and tell this won’t be problematic for him? I may sound a bit dramatic here, but some kids react to these kinds of changes in very negative ways, so you can’t assume that everything will be hunky dory. The more important point here is that this school has obviously not thought this policy through. If it gets broken by a kid’s parents, the kid suffers? What moronic administrator would ever think that’s a good idea? Policies are supposed to have children’s best interests at heart, and somehow I don’t see “kid has processed snack! Suspend him!” as really being the child’s best interests.
As dIs says, there’s a big difference between porn addiction and the general indulgence in self-gratification.
Cite your sources, please.
So the school should punish the kid by forcing him to change institutions where he has to make new friends, acclimate to a new environment, and get to know new teachers, all because his parents have a different interpretation of what must be a somewhat vague food policy? Okay. Sounds sane.
What exactly did he do wrong? His ancestors were the slaveowners, not him. An individual is responsible for his actions, not those who came before him. And the word “dodgy” is being yanked entirely out of context—that’s not the only way he’s described/talked about what his ancestors did. Maybe actually read up before making judgments, okay?
How was she trying to guilt him? She simply pointed out their historical connection, probably because they both have an unusual last name.
Katey Potter: Learn. To. Read. The woman isn’t currently doing anything to him. She’s simply acknowledged how they are connected.
I feel the same way. Wouldn’t it be similar if the child of a murder victim sued the child of the deceased parent’s killer? In both cases, those involved in the next-generation legal scrum had nothing to do with the original event.
Yeah, they’d probably be super pissed that civil rights are being celebrated and spreading. Really disappointed about that, I’m sure.