Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About TerraPrime

  • Rank
    Owner of A Ravenous Parting of Unspeakable Sins

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Middle of Illinois, USA

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

12,486 profile views
  1. It seems utterly specious to equate the notion of arming citizens who would make up the army to resist invaders and to depose tyrants with the notion of private citizens arming themselves against each other. These gun-related deaths are NOT results of anti-government resistance.
  2. Do we usually refer to people who move to different states as migrants? Like if someone moves from GA to NC for a job, do we call them a migrant?
  3. FYI, Puerto Ricans are American citizens, not migrants. No more than people in Tennessee are migrants for moving to Texas. But you already know that.
  4. This is the part of advising that gets a little dicy for me. I value people's agency and self-determination. So I really do respect your decision to go on with this ambiguously half-satisfying non-committed pseudo relationship, if that's your pick. At the same time, what Kelli said. And, just for compare and contrast: My husband and I are very independent. We speak less than 3 sentences to each other most evenings. He'd go see movies I don't care about, and vice versa, and then we would go to see movies we both like. So the point is that relationships do not have a fixed quantity of inter-mixing. It's as much or as little as you two want, and are happy about. Granted, when you love someone, you'd naturally want to spend time with them. And I do want to spend time with my husband, just not in a way that makes us always do things together as a couple. It's okay that he likes to watch B-horror movies from the 50s while I play online games, and it's okay that he goes to brunch with a group of people while I sleep in on Saturdays, etc. Giving each other space is an important reason why our relationship works for us. So if you were feeling suffocated while in a functional relationship, I just want to make the point that being emotionally supportive doesn't have to _also_ mean suffocating.
  5. I agree with the marvelous Kelli. Except I would probably use a less harsh set of speech. Because I am more wimpy lol. Though, seriously, Min. I get that you see clearly why you're crushing on him and why that's a comfortably dysfunctional thing to do. I think I get it, at least. But maybe, the question to ask, is when are you ready to move away from enjoying dysfunctional relationships at all. And I use the word "enjoying" in the sense that you're taking preference to avoidance of non-dysfunctional relations here, not that you're necessarily having a good time. Yeah, you like the will-we-won't-we tension, but I am not hearing from you confession of emotional support and sustenance that we typically want from relationships. This work dude is an emotional vampire. He lives off of the infatuation and crushes that he cultivates in his marks. He'll reciprocate your affection only as a way to keep you tethered to him. He expects dedication and loyalty while offering none in return. On one hand, if you see clearly through this and just want to "enjoy" it for what it is worth, then great. On the other hand, "enjoying" this type of interaction isn't a sign of healthy emotional wellbeing. You're a great person - intelligent, witty, compassionate, talented, attractive. It'd be a shame if you just settle for rotting table scraps like this work dude.
  6. This. Arguing about clauses and commas and conjunctions as a way to justify and validate a wide-affecting set of laws that impact directly on people's safety and security is inane, in the literal sense. When your framework produces absurd outcomes, you shouldn't be justifying the absurdity based on a grammatical argument about proper use of omitted conjunctions.
  7. We will need a pretty damn big stadium, since his approval rating is still 30%. Also, let's not be so nice as to let the not-so-hardcore Trump supporters off the hook. They knew what they were voting for. The fact that they are now regretful and admit to being wrong doesn't really mean shit, seeing as Agent Orange is already installed in the White House. Their recognition that they picked a wrong person is, as they say, a day late and a mile short.
  8. "Nothing" has been done largely because the people suffering from the widening economic disparity kept voting for politicians who stymie, block, and derail these policies that help them. Like, for instance, raising national minimum wage, or the Obamacare plans. It is tremendously difficult to bail out a sinking boat when the people in the boat are adding water to it. I'd also dispute that "nothing" has been done. The Obamacare alone has helped millions of low-income individuals to get health care. In red states that adopted the expansion, people love it and want it, as long as it's not called "Obamacare." That is bullshit, and I am going to call them on it. I want to help them, whether they want the help or not. But I'll be damned if I don't speak up when they pull stunts like that. They are their own worst enemies and I am trying to help them, at my own expense of tax rates, despite of themselves. I don't need a cookie, but I have no patience for that kind of whining, either. Also, I am not going to excuse their misogyny or racism just because they rightfully feel economically marginalized. Plenty of poor people are NOT racist or sexist. The two do not go hand in hand, always. I cannot sell out one group I care about to help another group I care about. We can unpack this, for the n'th time, but not in the politics thread. Start a thread on privileges if you care to continue.
  9. The stronger argument is that the Constitution (and the Amendments) do not capture what life is like in the future, but that it sets the boundaries of what is permissible and allowed. The rejection of re-interpreting the Constitution is not entirely baseless, and there is a certain level of rationality to it. While life and technology do change, the boundaries of freedom do not necessarily have to. It is an assumption that needs to be agreed upon, first, and it's that part that is tripping up the two sides.
  10. This is a disingenuous line of argument. There is a non-zero number of people who _are_ irresponsible gun owners and gun users. We know this because we have cases of it. We had a guy last year who pulled a gun out over road rage, fired it into a spot he thought was "blank" and killed a child in the backseat of the van. The idea that gun owners are responsible do-gooders who only want to defend themselves is true only up to the point when it is not true. The idea that there's a separation between "good, responsible" gun owners and "bad, irresponsible" gun owners is fictitious - most of these mass shooters were responsible gun owners up until they started firing into a crowd. The framing of the discussion where we are asked to focus on the fact that most gun owners are not mass shooters, as it relates to assessing public safety, is so far removed from how humans work in assessing risks. There are bombs that are duds and won't explode, so are we being overly cautious to treat all bombs as potentially devastating? There are foodborne pathogens that can kill, but most do not. Do we treat every case of infection as if it's nothing, until the patient dies? We evaluate risks based not only on propensity of occurrence but also on severity of impact. Also, what, pray tell, will holding the shooter accountable for death or permanent handicap do? Fuck all, is what it will do. Being held accountable by laws governing homicide and murder is the least useful form of redress we can get, but it's the only form available after-the-fact. For most people, we'd rather not have to be at that stage. I mean, what good did it do to the U.S. to hold UAE and Iraq accountable for 9/11? Fuck all, is what good it's done. I support people's right to own firearms. I support further deregulation on what firearms can be owned. I want felons to be able to own firearms. That is the logically consistent position for as long as the 2A is in effect. But let's have some decency in intellectual honesty and stop peddling ammosexual masturbatory softcore porn of good gun owners only aiming perfectly to disarm only the assailants without harming anyone else around.
  11. More guns. More bullets. More more.
  12. Ugh. That sucks. *hugs* Maybe there's a chance that they will turn out to be educate-able? In some cases it really does take having a loved one coming out to them to force them to re-examine their preconceptions and value judgments. It sucks to be that loved one who'd have to sustain the emotional lashings, but in some cases, progress can be made. *hugs*
  13. Keep tap-dancing and you might just convince yourself that you didn't just do the same thing you said is unreliable to make it look like your understanding of reality is reliable. I will also add that the data-that-is-in-any-way-statistical-I-pinky-swear-trust-me you used is far less credible, as has been shown, than the statistics the we have on the issue. But you know, feel free to categorically reject any statistics that don't fit your worldview while simultaneously use garbage statistics that fit yours. It's a free country.
  14. I seem to recall reading someone somewhere saying that we can't trust statistics because it's always manipulated to fit an agenda. I wish I could remember who said that.
  15. There's a reason that a whole lot of white people insist that BLM and Black Panthers are terrorists.