Welp. Lol and I normally catch those too. The good ones are the ones that usually getcha

If only you could like…ask? But I guess that’s the crux of the issue.

Do people you meet introduce themselves to you as Mrs/Ms X? Maybe if you work exclusively in/around schools…

This also ignores that shouting at someone in no way infringes on their ability to speak. It’s just something they don’t like to happen. Ironically, much like women going to abortion clinics and getting shouted down and harassed, simply based on their religious belief that abortion is wrong. But whew, let’s not apply logic to their beliefs…

No, I wanted lettuce…

Are you looking for an answer to a question, or are you looking for a debate?

At any rate, reducing the utility of an item to what it’s “lowest performance” should be to lower it’s ability to harm for non-intended uses is asinine. Who sets the limits? Does a knife need to be razor sharp? I can cut a lot of things with a dull knife and some time. It would pose less danger to you if all knives I had access to were purposefully dull. To prevent me from procuring an overly sharp knife, make the material strong enough to cut foods, but brittle enough to not be one overly sharp. Knives, after all, we’re made to stab, cut, and dissect a wide arrange of materials, flesh included. This specific design poses limitless danger to you, and needs to be considered when manufacturing these tools.

Guns are not majorly sold specifically to kill people, in the grand scheme of things. Hunting is probably the largest vector of volume gun sales in the US. How do you design a weapon that can be useful for hunting, but ineffective at killing a human? They all possess the innate ability to do so, but so does even the smallest pocket knife or kitchen knife.

I’m also a big gun control advocate, so I’m not defending anything I like. The failings of US gun control are squarely on the idea that everyone should possess a gun until they prove they shouldnt; it’s reactive policy. Active gun control would limit who can possess a gun from the start to those that will only use it for “appropriate” reasons.

Surprising. Oh well, free market and such. If only the leopard didn’t eat their face…lol

Agreed. If the workers are going to be separated from the profits via the company, the workers need to be separated from the company via union. The union and workers would have an interest in the companies success, cause no one wants to look for a new job if they like what they do and are compensated fairly. The company has a stake in the workers happiness because unrest endangers the company. Too many owners and LLCs are insulated from the consequences of strikes and negotiations simply because they have the capital to sit on their hands or burn it to the ground with little repurcussion.

Has to be Kroger or some offshoot of them. They used to pay decently well relative to other retail stores, about a decade ago. Now they pay less than everywhere else cuz “union tho”.

They’re building up to a killer golden age

This is a tactical retreat. Once the retreat is done, you’ll see that while Russia has given up physical land, they’ll have taken digital ownership of it via the smash-hit mobile game Atlas Earth, meaning Ukraine occupies the space, but Russia earns passive income from digital ownership.

Checkmate you dirty capitalist.

Screenshot this and attach it as a request for citizenship exception.

Democratic-> sovereign isn’t a backpedal; it’s describing two different things. You wouldn’t say that me describing some apples as green, and then saying there are 3 of them is somehow a reduction in the amount of green the apples are simple because I didn’t call them green again.

Sovereign describes the authority to do things on a territory. Ukraine is sovereign; they aren’t a territory of Russia, Ukraine answers to Ukraine on its own political matters. That does nothing to describe or rule-out democracy.

If I say “Ukraine is a democracy, who in 2019 held an election described as fair and free by international observers, in which the citizens elected a president of their own volition”, would you realize that me describing Ukraine as sovereign in no way, shape, or form, describes it’s elective process?

Cause if I need to, I will.

Sovereign as is the highest authority in the territory. The US is a sovereign nation. European countries are sovereign. In fact, most of the countries on the planet can be described as sovereign nations…

“Sovereign” does nothing to describe the type of governance the country has? Or do you have some wild insight about how sovereign actually means it’s an installed dictatorship?

So Putin, who is openly saying that the offensive isn’t going as planned, is OK sending tens of thousands of soldiers into the grinder agaisnt better equipment, just to go through surplus? He’s choosing to have thousands of Russians killed while sitting on equipment that could keep them safe?

What a guy. Noble cause he’s after, de-nazi-fying a sovereign nation, while also getting his citizens massacred in tank columns and shoddy equipment while he keeps the good stuff at home.

Unless that isn’t what he’s doing? But you did just say they were using old stuff on purpose. You wouldn’t be wrong, would you?

Lmao so what would you describe the massive losses Russia has taken in terms of lives, machinery, and munitions, as well as the open revolt Wagner engaged in? If Ukraine is losing fingers, teeth, and hearing, I imagine Russia has full on lost a limb and has bleeding to stabilize.

That rebellion was probably part of Put-daddy’s plan tho, right?

You’re not wrong, I think I had some misconstruing of the point of his statements.

I think the apathy has started popping up because the onus is being placed on the individual at multiple levels. It’s on me to change my habits to the level of environmental conscientiousness which I’m trying to reach; LEDs, efficient appliances, electric vehicle (arguable at this point), recycling efforts across many spectrums, supporting public policy that encourages green practices, etc. But even as a population, that doesn’t effect much change when considering corporate practices. Surface level changes to some operations to take advantage of rebates or subsidies, but only so far as it’s deemed profitable. Manufacturing and material acquisition still being “dirty”, use of international labor to sidestep stricter policies, general obfuscation tactics, lobbyists and generally vast amounts of money actively seeking to stop or reverse policies.

I as an individual can enact much change in my life and those around me. But it falls well short of what a single company could do if they really wanted to take the leap.

I could also just have a narrow-sighted perspective on the situation, but that’s largely where I fall currently. The focus on individual efforts vs societal (largely meaning the tools at my disposal beyond what I can provide myself) leaves much to be desired.

I can agree with that

I have no desire to continue trying to win over those people. There are absolutely still people to discuss these matters with. But we can’t abide by the lowest common denominator.

I disagree. I recently saw a video of someone saying “if the Bible said 1+1 is 3, I’d be finding ways to make the math work so that 1+1=3.” How is anyone supposed to have discussions with someone who’s views subsist in that mindset?

There are absolutely unwinnable people, to me. Additionally, they may be winnable, but we’re on a clock, and we can’t wait until it’s done to decide to leave them behind.

I do agree that there are factors larger than them causing the issue, and that needs dealt with as well.

Are we taking applications for the 500?