Additional charges against who, exactly? The shooter is dead.
I'm not sure what point there is to even spending any time ascertaining motive. It's not like you're going to use it against him on his court date, he's dead.
The "the family is not pressing charges" line also seems like it kinda goes without saying...
Ruth Gader Binsburg
Traitorapist
Oh come on, you're not even trying now, lol
"Female" is a descriptor of sex (element of anatomy), not gender identity (element of consciousness). Considering that the whole foundation of the notion of being trans relies on sex and gender being two distinct things, it literally can't be transphobic to use a sex adjective to refer to homologous body parts that are inherent to that sex, because being trans is all about variations of gender identity, not sex--the two don't actually intersect.
For example, only males/females are capable of suffering from prostate/ovarian cancer--and this population includes trans women/men.
correlated with a value of 0.11
lol, so essentially no correlation.
I'm always surprised there isn't more acknowledgement in progressive women's circles.
I'm not, ideological "circles" feign ignorance of truth that contradicts the group's narrative as a rule.
To see such things frankly acknowledged and taken responsibility for, now THAT would be surprising.
One thing has literally nothing to do with the other, this was just a desperate attempt to inject your politics, lol.
How does the fact that a criminal is running for office serve as evidence against the legitimacy of statistics about the overall incidence of crime itself?
It works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.
True equality, lol.
Not quite. 🤓 Humans and monkeys are both primates.
This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.
Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn't stop being a bad idea if you win the $2 after 1 bet.
I saw the video. He waved a gun around.
Timestamped link, please.
Not a problem, glad I indirectly convinced at least one person to examine the facts objectively. 👍
women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc.
It's simply the difference that's being noticed, and no one's really at fault for that, on either side. Any woman who never wears makeup is also never going to get the same 'are you sick?' kind of reactions on any given day she doesn't wear makeup to work.
Same, I'm really grateful she has no interest/desire to wear makeup. It was also nice to know what her face looked like from day 1, which is what this app is meant to facilitate.
The more I think about it, the stranger the notion of 'gatekeeping her real face' behind a full-on relationship sounds to me, lol.
P.S. lol, I just remembered reading an old 'hack' for this years and years ago: make a water park your first outing together.
- He didn't "wave a gun around"
- attacking someone unprovoked just because they are armed, especially when legally so, is ALSO never justified
- existing while armed is not intrinsically aggressive/provocative, no matter how much you insist it is. Rittenhouse did literally nothing that even remotely merited the murder attempted on him thrice that day.
Your opportunities in life are absolutely dependent on your wealth. Those hoarding wealth are stealing opportunity from everyone.
What if the wealth you possess was created by you? Wealth isn't zero sum, it's created all the time (and at a rate literally not achievable simply by underpaying employees, to pre-refute the expected response). The implied premise of 'because they have it, we don't have it' just doesn't hold any water.
Also, it doesn't really make sense to call it 'hoarding' when it's largely/all invested in businesses that run within the economy. To hoard something is to keep it isolated--investments in publicly-traded companies can never truly fairly be called "hoarding". You could only fairly call the funds kept in back accounts etc. unspent 'hoarded'.
Oh look, you completely ignored being pressed to support your ridiculous 'he was pointing his gun at people for no reason repeatedly, before anyone attacked him' claim. You prove you're just another narrative-clinging ideologue who will throw as much bullshit at the wall as possible, hoping something sticks or isn't challenged.
You're a waste of time.
The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going
Victim blaming 101, I sleep.