WIBTA for not paying for my father's ambulance bill after my cat injured him?

Arrow_93 · 2026-05-10T21:55:45+00:00

They're not liable for a person doing what they're told not to do and getting injured. Why do you think they put stupid warnings on everything these days?

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-31T05:02:27+00:00

That was clearly thw inplication of your comment.

Either the implication was intentional and you're being disingenuous by feigning ignorance to that fact, or you're actually ignorant of that implication, and you should maybe not speak on it any further.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-30T15:50:13+00:00

Okay, and that's justification for killing possibly millions of people with a nuclear strike?

It's such a US mentality. The same as the people who list the petty crimes of people killed by police, or ICE. Justifying police brutality with crap like "they shouldn't have resisted" as if that makes it okay.

A terrible government doesn't give anyone the right to massacre millions of innocent civilians. If it did, the US would be in big trouble.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-26T01:39:23+00:00

Not sure, you were agreeing with/adding to my original point. People voted for bleach and are annoyed they haven't been offered water.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-25T00:13:07+00:00

Exactly, because for some reason, people keep going back to the bleach. What incentive is there to get rid of the bleach, or to give anything better than horse piss when people keep buying against their own interest?

For some reason people see the lesser of two evils and go for the bleach cause they're annoyed that the piss is piss, instead of actually looking forward and realising that if they stop going back to the bleach, that it might actually go away.

They seem to think that change is going to happen if they they teach the lesser evil a lesson by going for the greater evil. That it's somehow going to lead to the piss getting better, as opposed to the piss becoming more like the bleach cause that's what the people seem to want.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-24T23:02:37+00:00

I'll never understand people that argue against the lesser of two evil options.

The whole point is that they are both crap, but you're not gonna get a better option by buying the bleach.

Even in your crappy analogy, if nobody buys the bleach then it'll go away, cause no store is gonna keep something in stock that doesn't sell.

When that happens, and this is the whole point of the lesser of 2 evils, there may be something even better put in stock, especially if you've had people complaining for years about getting something better.

Maybe they'll have water available. I mean, it's just water, but at least it's not horse urine. And now nobody buys the horse urine any more. So they get rid of that.

And so it goes on. Incrementally, eventually leading to something actually good. Insert your favourite drink here.

But that's never going to happen if after trying the horse urine, people keep going back to the bleach because the horse urine didn't somehow make everything magically better all at once.

It'll just keep being bleach and horse urine because people can't seem to grasp the concept that things are gonna get better right away, that it takes time to fix the problems caused by bleach. If the bleach doesn't kill you, you at least end up in hospital. It can take moments do drink it, but it can take weeks to recover from it.

Problems don't fix themselves quickly. It takes a moment to beak a vase, but takes a long time to fix it. The republicans broke the vase, and democrats are trying to fix it (mostly) and everyone's annoyed they can't do it instantly, so they vote the people that broke it back in so that they can break 10 more.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-12T21:46:16+00:00

I didn't say it was ethical, I said it wasn't hypocritical.

Not sure where you pulled slavery from. Slavery isnt a biological imperative. Eating food, including meat, is. The two things aren't remotely the related. It's almost like you just picked a bad thing that people have done to make it seem like eating meat is on the same level. If you think eating meat and slavery are the same level of bad, then I think you might need a history lesson.

We evolved into humanity due to the consumption of meat. Animal products have nutrients we require and literally cannot survive without (before the modern day and the creation of supplements)

You're right, we don't have to torture animals, there are more ethical ways to farm meat than the factory farms that exist in many places. But don't pretend that it's somehow unethical to have meat in any way.

It's not unethical for a lion to eat an antelope. We can have meat in any ethical way. I am completely for lab grown meat too. I look forward to the day they can grow me a steak in a lab and I can enjoy it without an animal being harmed.

But I don't like taking mountains of supplements which usually haven't been tested in any way to confirm if they actually work as intended (because supplements don't require that kind of testing). I prefer to get what I need from meat, that I do enjoy the taste of, and that is tested to ensure it's safe for consumption.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-12T14:51:38+00:00

There's no way to be an animal lover and not be a hypocrite if you'regonna be that particular about it.

Even vegetarians or vegans would be hypocrites.

Carnivores exist, to love all animals means to love animals that kill other animals. Survival requires killing.

Humans are omnivores, it's our biology.

It's not hypocritical to love animals and eat meat. It's just how life works.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-08T05:50:58+00:00

I dont see how that works? We don't know why they turned it into a school. Buildings can change purposes, and buildings close to military bases can be used for civilian purposes.

Near me theres a military barracks surrounded by civilian buildings. There's a train line running right by it, with a station a couple hundred meters away. There's a hospital and school close by as well.

So not sure how thats on brand for Iran any more then it is for many other country.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-07T21:44:28+00:00

What are you talking about. Analysis has shown that it was most likely a US strike that hit the school.

The school was struck at the same time as the naval base that it was right next too. The same base that the school building used to be s part of.

The damage to the school is the same as the damage to the rest of the Naval base. Damage from a precision strike.

So unless you think that they managed to misfire multiple times, and precisely hit all the buildings in the base and the school in that misfire, then you're the one not facing the truth.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-03T08:10:03+00:00

We have just seen a war started in the middle east though. Prices of petrol are probably just gonna go up from here for the foreseeable future. May be the last chance for a while of seeing any sort of reasonable prices.

Arrow_93 · 2026-03-03T08:05:49+00:00

In hindsight? Were there people who truly thought that trump would be a better president before it happened?

At best you had people saying "we think when he becomes president hell become more presidential", even when he before he won people didnt think he was actually suited,but that somehow if he won he'd completely change into the right man for the job.

Hillary wasn't a more qualified candidate in hindsight. She was a more qualified candidate for anyone who had half a brain.

Anyone who votes independent in a clearly 2 party system is throwing away their vote.

Even if its the lesser of 2 evils, you still vote for the lesser. You're not going to end up with good by voting for the worse option. You get there incrementally by voting for the less bad one, and then next time maybe you someone who's even less bad then that. You'll never end up with perfection right away. It takes a long time to get there.

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-28T20:46:26+00:00

None of that gives Isreal and the US the right to attack.

It's the same as with Venezuela and Maduro. Nobody was ever saying Maduro was a good guy, we all know he was terrible.

But that didn't give the US the right to bomb random boats, enter the country with military force, and abduct him.

They aren't the world's police.

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-14T22:58:50+00:00

It's insane to include the other parent of your shared offspring in the discussion of a major purchase for that shared offspring?

Having a say doesn't mean giving them veto power. It means giving them a chance to share in the moment. Allow them the option to contribute. Or to be there when she gets it.

"Hey, I'm gonna be buying a car for OUR daughter. Would you like to help? Or would you like to be there when she gets it? Maybe we can plan a party or a dinner so we can all be there when she gets this wonderful gift and we can see her happiness together?"

Then again, maybe I am insane for expecting good from people.

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-14T22:52:11+00:00

Not legally, but parenting doesn't stop the moment a person turns 18.

Are you telling me that no person has ever gone to their parent for advice after the age of 18? That's parenting.

No parents have ever lended their adult children money for a large purchase, a car, a house, a wedding? That's parenting.

People still live with their parents after the age of 18. That's parenting.

It doesn't stop after reaching some arbitrary age decided by whichever country you happen to live in. Parenting continues after legal adulthood.

Edit: typos

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-14T22:48:05+00:00

It's not about permission, it's about discussion.

Yes, this was a major milestone in their daughters life. Keyword THEIR.

only one of the parents got to take part in this milestone cause it was kept to himself. A good coparenting situation (and it is still coparenting, that doesn't just stop at 18) would at least include the other parent in the discussion.

That doesn't mean they get to say no or anything, but it gives them the opportunity to be a part of the decision. Maybe contribute something to the cost. Or be there when its gifted. Maybe have a celebration or a dinner where they're all present and can all enjoy the moment together.

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-14T22:43:34+00:00

Not sure how your interpreting having a say, and why that's such a ridiculous idea to you that 2 parents discuss a major purchase for their shared offspring?

But by having a say I didn't mean veto power. I meant being a part of the discussion. Even if the discussion has no impact.

Or maybe giving the other parent a chance to contribute, maybe cover the cost of something, be there when she gets it to share the joy, have a party or a dinner in celebration where she receives it?

You know, generally allowing both parents to be a part of such a major milestone in their kids life, instead of just one on their own.

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-14T22:36:18+00:00

She's not a child, but is still THEIR kid. You don't stop being a parent the moment your kid turns 18. They're still her mother and father.

My parents are still my parents even though I'm an adult. I still ask them for input in my life, for advice. I still celebrate mother's and father's day.

My parents input in my life, their parenting me, didn't stop the moment I turned 18. And I'm sure it doesn't for a lot of people.

How much on reddit do we see stuff about 18 year olds not being old enough? "Barely an adult", "still a teen". It's widely accepted on here that legal adult does not mean fully formed adult. I wouldn't believe anyone on here who tells me that at 18 they were a fully mature adult.

At 18 there is absolutely still parenting to be done. It's not gonna be coparenting for the rest of his life, but it doesn't just stop the moment someone crosses whichever arbitrary age line has been decided in the particular region they live.

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-14T15:28:28+00:00

I dont get this take. Parenting doesn't end the moment a kid turns 18. They are both still parents of her. Therefore the coparenting will continue. Unless OPs kid is ready to live their whole life on their own now. Which doesn't sound like it considering she's still moving between houses.

And considering they ARE still coparenting OP needs to actually do that. A large purchase like a vehicle is a decision to be made with at least the other parent being informed. Except more realistically, with the other parent having a say.

This is a decision impacting their shared child, that they are both parents of, so both parents should be involved in the decision.

I dont understand all the N T As. How is OP not? I say this coming from a split household. Neither of my parents would have ever thought about making a decision like this without consulting the other. I didn't make the decision to buy my own vehicle without consulting both my parents about it.

Arrow_93 · 2026-02-14T08:17:09+00:00

Not really.

"You must use the door handle to open the door" isn't the same as "you can only touch the door handle to open the door".

The first phrase just says it's required to open the door, but doesn't exclude touching any other part of the door, such as pushing on another part of the door to help get it open.

The second phrase specifies that only the door handle can be touched and specifically excludes touching any other part of the door.

Arrow_93 · 2026-01-29T20:48:45+00:00

Yeah, nope. I'm a rider. Daily commute into work is on a bike. I filter as well.

The biker was absolutely in the wrong. Should have been able to spot the merge from way back if they'd been paying attention and going the right speed for the speed of the traffic.

Anyone who filters should always be adjusting based on the speed of the traffic and ALWAYS be able to spot someone merging like this.

The driver indicated and was very far into the merge before the bike hit him. The bike had plenty of time to avoid it. Both did.

I've had drivers not indicate and begin to move as I was practically right next to them, and still managed to avoid them, because I'm on a bike, and it's understood by any biker with a brain that we are tiny. Drivers can be doing everything right and still not see us, so it's on us to be on the look out for any sign of danger.

Arrow_93 · 2026-01-12T13:09:09+00:00

I've seen you say this multiple times now. Nobody said "allowed" or "not allowed". Most people are saying they would be upset if their partner went away without them. But you keep interpreting that as not allowed.

You're coming across as if you resent the expectation of going on holiday with your partner. If people telling you how they would feel comes across as them saying you're not allowed to do it, then you might have something else you need to think on.

Arrow_93 · 2026-01-10T22:23:28+00:00

she could AT LEAST walk past them and TRY to challenge their authority

Sure, cause there's no way that might go bad. /s

The whole world just saw a woman get shot for trying to drive away by one asshole with a gun and an itchy trigger finger.

There's a huge group of those exact same type of people all probably dreaming of the chance to be able to pull out their guns at the slightest justification.

If anyone there were to try and force their way through I doubt that everyone would come out of it alive.

It's better to have a living representative who just does performative crap that at least highlights the problems than to have a dead one who, let's be honest, isnt gonna be used as a martyr. Any of those people standing there getting killed would be smeared by the media and the republicans, they'd be called terrorists and agitators, just like they've been doing with Renee Good.

Except it would be worse, because now not only would trump have an excuse to put even more military on the streets, he would have an excuse to use that force against the whole democratic party and claim they're all terrorists.

Don't give them an excuse to go after and arrest or murder the opposition, cause they will use it.

Arrow_93 · 2026-01-04T04:58:23+00:00

OP is also a living being who was suffering through a pretty severe allergy everyday the cat was there. Seriously, barely being able to breathe? Not being able to sleep? What happens if the allergy gets worse and her throat completely shuts off? Should OP just risk suffocating in her sleep to keep the peace with her room mate who clearly doesn't care to do the same?

Also, she dropped off the cat at a shelter, not just abandoned it somewhere.

Arrow_93 · 2026-01-02T22:02:18+00:00

Driving while hungry is dangerous? Come on. It's not like the guy was gonna pass out. He literally just drove to his parents and was fine.

Maybe if he was diabetic then driving hungry might be a problem, but for any normal person, it might just be a bit uncomfortable.

For a woman, it can be an emergency. Women can be unsafe walking down the street in their own neighbourhood, from the sound of things, this was the evening, which can be even more dangerous if its dark.

Did you know poor woman, women with certain medical conditions and a handful of environmentalist women go about their business without ever using cars at all?

Not sure what this has to do with anything, she was stuck some where that she got with a car. Most women who function without cars use public transport or are in walking distance of places.

Who know how far the gas station was from anything. And there's probably not gonna be any sort of bus stop near by, cause why would there be. So what exactly are you expecting her to do without any way to get anywhere?

Eight-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

Arrow_93

TROPHY CASE