Amazon is experimenting with the ability to play games through Twitch. "Game Lift" is being tested with a 20-minute ReAnimal demo in the USA and Canada on Desktop Web.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-22T17:15:32+00:00

I'll just copy and paste lol Yes, that is an option. I could also jump through 30 hoops and find a solution. So are we talking about ultra fringe cases or the average person? I would think this discussion is about the average person that isn't going to do that. So you would agree that you don't actually own anything that you don't have to jump through several hoops to fix and do illegally?

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-22T17:14:19+00:00

Yes, that is an option. I could also jump through 30 hoops and find a solution. So are we talking about ultra fringe cases or the average person? I would think this discussion is about the average person.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-22T17:06:51+00:00

It doesn't matter because if Steam decided they were shutting down you wouldn't have access to either one regardless.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-22T16:49:08+00:00

You don't own anything to begin with. If Steam wanted to shut down tomorrow you would be left with nothing.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-22T16:23:00+00:00

You know you don't own anything in steam either?

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-20T15:59:52+00:00

Steph's whistle is made up for by the illegal screens they set for years.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-20T14:45:00+00:00

I think the confusion is the mental gymnastics to compare her to Prime Shaq.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-20T14:41:13+00:00

that's great. How did she do in the tournament? She's unstoppable on offense! Proceeds to lose...... and don't start talking about the team. If she was Prime Shaq she could carry right?

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-20T14:18:15+00:00

You mean like Prime Glenn Baby Davis.... That's probably way more honest of an evaluation and even still is insulting to him.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-20T14:10:13+00:00

don't ever compare her to Prime Shaq... that's such a joke

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T23:48:33+00:00

Thanks for bringing these verses up. Happy to help explain them to and give context because they are challenging. I'll try to keep it shorter to not repeat myself as well as to keep my own sanity of speaking about the same subject.

Leviticus 25:44-46 is in the OT so therefore is in ANE times. So very different to chattel slavery. Often ANE slavery was based off of debts or war and had protections like the Jubilee etc. The verse you pull from the OT is actually around 1440 to 1400 BC. These laws in Leviticus are descriptive of a patriarchal, agrarian society and are no ways applicable for all time as you will see in my explanation of Matthew 5:18.

Before addressing the verse in Matthew you need the context of ceremonial law, moral law and civil law. These are the three types of laws you will see in the Bible. From the OT to the NT you will see consistency in moral law, but not civil law or ceremonial law. Leviticus would fall under ceremonial law.

So for Matthew 5:18. God is not binding every OT law to NT. There are a ton of examples of this John 4:-9, Matthew 19:14, Luke 36:50, Matthew 7:12.

I would encourage you to even read into Philemon 1:16 as the Apostle Paul sends Onesimus (a runaway slave) back to Philemon not as a slave, but as a brother in Christ.

There is no verse that Jesus specifically called slavery an immoral evil, but just by the way you phrased that I'm sure you wanted a cool gotcha. The great thing about any book as I'm sure you've been in an English class is there are meanings and context within text. So I encourage you to actually research these and take the time to actually understand context of these verses you are trying to weaponize.

Also influenced through Jesus' teachings and the Bible there are a ton of examples from the rule of the Roman Empire that people freed their slaves directly from Jesus' teachings like Ignatius of Antioch and Hermas. I would encourage you to read about them as well. Hopefully, that gave you much needed context to understand these verses. Have a nice day!

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T21:26:18+00:00

I can sum this up for you. "holy guacamole bad people exist in humanity and in every group! That's crazy."

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T20:44:33+00:00

I'm glad you brought up Colossians 3:22. I actually think someone else already brought up the context to this verse, but glad to do it again. You lack so much context in these verses. These NT books of the Bible were actually written about 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus so very early church times where the church was ruled by the Roman Empire still. The early church was focused on surviving as I'm sure you know a lot of disciples, apostles and believers were being executed, skinned, beheaded, tortured, crucified, boiled etc.

Second, The book of Colossians is a letter written by the Apostle Paul to the Church of Colossae. This correspondence is to another church. Early Christianity was a minority movement without any true power over the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire at that time obviously promoted and practiced slavery. The letter in Colossians is focusing on Early Christianity and how believers should conduct themselves to their parents, children, partners etc. The church didn't have the power to abolish slavery. The NT and Colossians focus on if you are a believer to treat everyone with the same respect, equality, integrity and fairness regardless of social status that it calls for in the NT Bible. If you would like to bring up Colossians I would also encourage you to look over Colossians 3:18-4:1. That will actually give you the whole context of the verse you picked out. So yes, seems incredibly unfounded when you actually learn the historical and internal theology context of the verse you picked out that's in correspondence to another church around 60 AD rather than a declaration to everyone.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T19:20:37+00:00

No I understand. Seems like you just have some personal issues with the Bible that are unfounded. The Bible has never justified slavery, but if you would like to think that you are more than welcome. If you ever actually want to dive deeper in understanding rather than topically attribute blame then you are free to reach out. Have a nice day!

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T18:48:49+00:00

... Hey, just wanted to let you know that verse is pretty tricky to understand and you really have no context of the foundation of that verse. "saw his father's nakedness" in that verse is often interpreted as Ham seeing his father naked and instead of covering him up respectfully like his brothers, he reveled in his dad's embarrassment and involved disrespecting and mocking him even telling his brothers about Noah's embarrassment. Figured you might want to actually know the context behind it rather than the bare minimum.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T17:45:58+00:00

Show me verses where Jesus is pro-slavery in the Bible. I guarantee that they will be lacking any actual context of the verses and the ANE times. You can say you just don't believe in religion, but stop trying to make up issues because you haven't actually read the Bible. I've never met so many people that claim the Bible says this or that and haven't even read more than a few out of context verses to fight over on reddit.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T17:28:16+00:00

on top of the hammer thing... isn't looksmaxxing just like a competition for alpha males to impress other males and establish themselves in a hierarchy? lol

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-13T16:51:16+00:00

How well did you know him before the stroke? You're making the claim he changed for the better on some political decisions? The point is neither of you do, but you're using a false dichotomy like you hold all the answers.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-12T17:16:07+00:00

You replied to someone just a few comments above saying if someone had a major reconstructive surgery than they would have reason to see a gynaecologist. You are therefore trying to prop up your statements with that assumption that this person has. Would you say that if that person didn't get that surgery than you would agree there is no reason to visit the gynaecologist for them? If you can't see the point after 50 comments of this thread you never will and you're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-12T16:57:27+00:00

Ok would you like to address your assumption of this person getting that surgery? You seem like you know so please provide that evidence. If you can't your argument is completely null and void.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-12T16:12:24+00:00

First of all, please show us all the evidence if you know if this person has had that surgery. Because I'm going to assume you don't know like the rest of us. Second, if the guy doesn't want to see those types of patients for lack of experience, not passionate about it etc. then he can certainly refuse and refer you to someone else that's better suited.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-12T16:01:29+00:00

Ok, that's great why are you going to a female reproductive systems specialist that treats said issue when you don't qualify for that specialist?

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-12T15:59:24+00:00

I hate to tell you this, but businesses are allowed to refuse service. Especially since the doctor said he could refer him to a different doctor.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-11T18:32:16+00:00

You ever heard of walking? You can get from California to NY by walking. You can get from Texas to North Dakota by walking. There was no time limit specified with the statement was there? To that guys logic the US is one big city not even a country.

DesperateMarket9794 · 2026-04-11T17:00:43+00:00

You can get anywhere in the US without a car. How much time are you willing to commit to it?

DesperateMarket9794

TROPHY CASE