flicker

I’ve recently realized the very real and very understandable boundary that my cat had where he does not wish to be petted (and stimulated, and surprised) while sleeping, even if purring on my lap.

When I started respecting this boundary he started telling me when he wants pet time (by screaming at my face and occasionally, doing a social roll on my lap, which is insanely cute.)

The packaging (and small menu) is why I quit using them.

She’s not a teacher.

They weren’t teachers. They worked in an office to support homeless students. It was mostly the manager of said office, though she “encouraged other staffers” to do the same.

I know why I’m here. It’s because I have gastroenteritis and nothing else to do.

The evidence that doesn’t conclude her innocence, was her claiming things like being a member of the LGBTQ community. That doesn’t prove innocence, especially in face of the evidence that Protist was saying they didn’t have enough of, and one assumes that’s either because they don’t want to believe it, or because they chose not to actually read anything they were commenting on. Which, coincidentally, is information you didn’t have because you also must not have read any of the supporting evidence at that point.

I wasn’t referring to any of that. I was referring to you jumping on an entirely third party, Samvega, and attacking them of baseless accusations. Which is where I joined the conversation. So that might tell you where I came from, since you’re so interested in context.

Samvega was not making a baseless accusation. In fact, you’ve reviewed the evidence and even admitted at this point that the lady is in fact probably racist.

Your only defense for all of this is, “I just don’t want people to accuse random people of being racist.” But you also recognize that hasn’t happened here. So why are you arguing with me?

So now you’re saying the reason you’re indignant that someone might have said she was racist… was because they didn’t begin by saying, “I, too, have seen the evidence that is referenced in the article we’re all commenting on?”

Wylde Flowers.

I romanced and married someone then there was a massive betrayal that took place. I was so upset and angry that I’d married this person two seasons ago and then they betrayed me!

Got a divorce and then couldn’t finish the game. It didn’t help I was so happy with my choice that I’d closed the door on every other romantic option. Lonely farm for me!

Teddy Roosevelt was a big conservationist. He would’ve happily knocked some heads over the idea he was effeminate for it.

In the context of the original comment you made in this thread, we knew she had made the post. You even reference her talking about the post she made. That post is, in fact, racist. So the facts you’re trying to point to are-

1. She made a post
2. It was racist

There’s nothing baseless about either of those statements, so there’s nothing baseless about stating she is, in fact, probably a racist. And your arguments about giving someone (who admitted they made the racist post) the “benefit of the doubt” are arguments for giving a person, who made a racist statement, the benefit of the doubt, about being racist.

Accusing others of making a baseless accusation against an innocent hold zero water when these facts are evident. I am pointing at the basis.

How is “the lady who made an extremely racist post online might be racist” a random accusation, exactly?

We’re certainly allowed to see this in our own ways. Anyone who says blanket statements about how we perceive an unborn child is making a statement about what we believe.

In my opinion, that kind of assertion crosses the line between someone championing the opinion of another and becomes championing their own opinion.

Neither.

I’m talking about this:

The reason why it’s worse if she’s pregnant is because you took away her choice and opportunity to have that baby

To each their own I guess. I personally would feel horrible about killing a child not just removing a temporary opportunity or something. I’m not saying it’s the same as an abortion, just that we on a fundamental level do understand that the fetus isn’t just a clump of cells.

Go and find the context, see that they used lots of “I’m pro choice” language, but then went on to argue that an embryo is a child. This is someone using lots of careful language, but is making a specific argument.

They go on to argue that abortion is murder in a different comment. They’re using careful language but it’s obvious this isn’t a person who is simply “arguing the other side,” this is a conversation done in bad faith.

That’s the beauty of the internet. There’s always a competitor. I don’t have to use someone who had a bad reputation at one point but is fine now. I can just use someone else.

You better go in disguise.

Keep in mind that there are lots of people who know exactly what they need, but can’t afford it.

The guy giving the presentation used the example of a pill that cures Hep C. They charge you $84,000 for the pills that will cure Hep C, but since there are cheaper meds that manage Hep C, insurance will cover only those.

By the way, making those cure pills with this system costs about $70. For the entire course of the medication.

The problem you’re talking about (see a professional to get a proper diagnosis and treatment!) is perfectly valid and wise. But if I try a migraine medication, and it works, but after the trial I have to pay hundreds of dollars a pill?

Yo ho!

Recognizing your bias is remarkable and worth these upvotes!

Also I want to add even if you believe that those soldiers were victims of propaganda, they believed they were serving the country. They believed they were serving their fellow man. That counts in my book.

I lay the blame for why they died at the feet of the men and women responsible for their deployments, not at the feet of those who died believing in something bigger than themselves.

Military people are a cross-section of Americans at large, not a single bloc.