I agree there's no need to exaggerate.
But it is worrying anyway. It's very much play-by-play from Hitler's playbook.
Suppress opposition while getting a force which simps for you and challenges normal authorities.
- Posts
- 17
- Comments
- 4689
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 17
- Comments
- 4689
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
Take your child to work day? Shouldn't be doing that if you work in an industrial lab tho.
Maybe the storage room of a college chem class or smth?
I mean, in the end, he did finally become left-leaning, so...
(This wasn't my joke originally.)
I don't think I've ever used or even heard the phrase... unfortunately..?
But "the pussy of a dick" would be something like "vitun kyrpä", which is something I may have used once or twice or thrice or...
But it's more like saying "you fucking dick". "Vittu" is our "fuck" more or less, contextually, although if you take it literally it means a certain type of female reproductive organ, yeah. But then again if you take "fuck" literally it's having sex.
And I probably Jimmy Carr, because YouTube kept pushing his shorts.
I googled this Hovind fella and you're right, I can see that as well.
Yes yes, ofc they "controlled for". It's always the same argument with these studies. And you know it isn't remotely enough so you appeal to authority by saying "reputable universities and institutions", as if there hasn't been literally hundreds of billions put into anti-cannabis research and there's still only massively vague correlations instead of being able to show a single causation. Unlike with alcohol, which you can clearly demonstrate a sudden onset psychosis from pretty much anyone as long as you're giving them something above say 8% ABV for a few hours on an empty stomach.
Yet you'll also be able to find millions of people smoking weed daily without issues. You can't say that for alcohol. Yet the implication is still one of "we can't legalise more drugs" as if legalising made people less aware of the risks and less likely to abuse those substances, when we *know" it doesn't. It actually does the opposite. Prohibition increases abuse and associated risks.
But hey, let's spend another day arguing about how theres definitely a "link" between cannabis use and mental health disorders, even though not a single person can say what the link is how it forms or why.
Last time I did it I ended up having to read and Google all sorts of "reputable institutions" and once I did find the material, turns out even though they claimed to have controlled for all of those aspects, every single cannabis user was from a lower socioeconomic group than the control groups, which were in areas which were distinctly higher in average socioeconomic class. Then they just claimed that they had "controlled". They clearly hadn't. They had done the exact opposite.
Edit and just to make it clear, ofc any substance use has risks. Caffeine moreso than cannabis, for real.
If you zoom in you'll see only light green depicts islands, deep green is the water near them that is not proper sea but archipelago.
Åland is closer to Sweden but it's still Finnish.
You can see it better on this one
And that's because Trump is a Russian shill and Russia promised to bring down America in this exact way, a half a century ago. Edit dmn I'm getting old that's closer to 3/4ths of a century
Have to agree there.
I actually thought he looked liked Jimmy Carr
I'm sure you were very good, but I doubt that you had that good a name memory as a five-year old.
I taught myself how to read as well, so I ain't the dullest of pens either but somehow I just doubt you could've rattled off that many correct names and titles as a five-year old. Although, it might just be projection from my almost 40-year old weed-smoking soon-to-be-some-serious-memory-problem having ass. If so, apologies.
Can you understand that I see a fluffy animal I'd like to pet despite thinking it's not immoral to eat them?
Because I don't think you do. And if you want more people reducing the amount of (factory farmed) meat they eat and/or supporting vegan products, perhaps don't paint eveyone who eats meat as a "someone only capable of seeing burgers and leather belts".
I have a leather jacket. It's older than me. It's from the 70's or perhaps even 60's. It's still in good condition because I take care of it. How many plastic (polyester) jackets have you gone through in the last 20 odd years? Because those hurt mother nature both directly and indirectly. How often do have you used an airplane? What's your carbon footprint? Despite me eating meat, I guarantee mine is lower than yours.
But that's okay, because you're not capable of equating indirect harm to anything you contribute to, no, it's only the evil "carnists" who just can't be nice to animals or even ever really feel happiness from the gut wrenching hunger to consume animal flesh they must be suffering from all the time.
Oh well, it's still a bit cheaper than here, relatively.
But I remberer lots of people saying how they were gonna quit once packs hit 5€. And at the time it felt like something crazy that would never happen, and packs cost like 3 or at most 4€ then.
I mean yeah, I don't consume as much cigarettes nowadays, in fact none, but am still a smoker as I don't like smoking weed without tobacco, but I also don't like smoking tobacco without weed.
My opinion is just that vice taxes are shit, because while there might be an argument made, it disproportionately affects people of different income. What's a pack of ciggies tripling their price to someone with high and stable income? Nothing. What is it to the lowest classes? With minimum wage back in idk say 2005 you only needed to work like 15-20min to earn enough for ciggies, now it's definitely more than an hour. And that's not counting income taxation etc, just from gross pay.
Honestly it's weird how adamant people are there have always been people who solely preferred one sex over the other. While it's generally true for modern society, people wouldn't have even understood what you mean in ancient times by "sexual orientation", really. I mean you could obviously explain it and people could answer to a degree, but...
Well, think of this, we have left and right in our languages. We all know those are relative terms. My left and your left are different, most of the time. Anyway, there exists a tribe who don't have relative words for directions, and they only use cardinal directions, all the time. As in if they're hanging a painting, they'd say "no, no, a bit to the north" instead of "left". On a tangent, it makes them very much immune to getting lost as they have incredible sense of direction for that reason. My point being that to us it's simple that you just use left and right, why wouldn't you, when people know what it means and it's simple. So why doesn't that tribe use them? Idk, it's just not in their culture. Just like such strict classifications of sexual orientation weren't much of a thing in ancient and prehistoric times.
Bill And The Romans Talk About Sexuality | The Eaters Of Light | Doctor Who
Cornelius: Yeah, don't worry, Bill, Lucius will look after you.
Lucius: Shut up, Cornelius!
Bill: Ahh, Lucius, erm, right, listen there's, erm, something I should explain.
Lucius: What?
Bill: This is probably just a really difficult idea. I don't like men that way.
Lucius: What? Not ever?
Bill: Nah, not ever. Only women.
Nah...not ever.
Lucius: Oh. Alright, yeah, I've got it. You're like Vitus then.
Bill: What?
Lucius: He only likes men.
Vitus: Some men. Better looking men than you, Lucius.
Lucius: I don't think it's narrow-minded, I think it's fine. You know what you like.
Bill: And you like both?
Lucius: I'm just ordinary, I like men and women.
Where? In EU and Australia at least tobacco is taxed to high heaven and costs like 10+ western money units (take whichever, dollar or euro, still roughly applies) a pack/pouch
I pay 14.30€ for a 30g pouch of rolling tobacco. And it's probably more expensive the next time I buy because the pack before that was 13.50€. There's a few price-hikes every year.
Can't remember.