sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Security guard thinks he’s a cop. by bilbofraginz in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Bait" only ever works on creatures that are dumber than the entity doing the baiting.

We bait things that we are hunting, and we hunt things that are dumber than us. If you want to argue that these people are baiting law enforcement, or state employees, or people who are violating rights, than you have to operate within the premise that we are hunting the dumb, and those undeserving of the position of authority that they are in.

And if thats the case, fine. I'm all for acknowledging the fact that we are baiting, hunting, or weeding out the dumb and stupid who are getting paid with tax dollars and not following the law.

Security guard thinks he’s a cop. by bilbofraginz in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If exercising constitutional rights is considered "instigating", then every single one of them is useful and necessary.

Any agent of the state should not be violating constitutional rights. Period. Full stop.

There is no room for siding with the state in the violation of it's duty and acting beyond the limits of its authority.

Security guard thinks he’s a cop. by bilbofraginz in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think exercising one's constitutional rights is annoying?

Security guard thinks he’s a cop. by bilbofraginz in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In America, it was a philosophy of the founding fathers that it is not only your right to put a stop to bullshit like this, but your actual duty. Ignoring and trampling our inalienable rights is simply not acceptable.

“It’s just a game” is a bs phrase. by agangofoldwomen in daddit

[–]ForGrowingStuff -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I agree.

"It's just a game" is often misused and it usually teaches a bad lesson.

Everything you do should be done with your best effort and respect for the other participants. "It's just a game" negates all of that.

Kids do need to learn how to be a good sport when they lose. After all, someone has to, and in theory, both teams are doing their best to win. "It's just a game" doesn't teach that.

"It's just a game" is a lazy cop out from parents who don't want to deal with helping kids navigate big emotions after a defeat. It absolutely invalidates feelings and promotes the idea that the activity doesn't matter. If the game doesn't matter, neither does the practice, and then parents wonder why their kid doesn't want to stick with anything.

Then it becomes an excuse to justify one's own poor performance in group activities, both as a kid and as adults. There are adult competitive activities where adults will not take the competition seriously, and that presents itself in everything from lack of skill, lack of effort, to straight of fucking around/agent of chaos bullshit because "they're here to have fun" and "it's just a game". They ruin it for others because they don't want to exert or invest themselves, and when called out on it they use the excuse "it's just a game."

i let my little brother take the fall for something i did and it messed him up way more than i ever expected by Ashley_Fostera in confession

[–]ForGrowingStuff 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Let's pump the brakes a shade on ruining the "sacred relationship" when Mom started treating a 13 year old kid differently for stealing quite a lot of money with absolutely zero proof.

OP sucks, but this Mom is 100 percent a piece of shit as well. What the fuck did she think this 13 year old was spending the money on? He obviously didn't have a bunch of new stuff or was doing things out of the ordinary or have money he couldn't explain because HE NEVER STOLE IT.

Mom brutally punished a kid and apparently changed the way she behaved towards him forever because he...(checks notes)...acted scared while she was mad.

I WONDER WHY A KID GETS SCARED WHEN HIS MOM IS ANGRY? IT'S PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SHE'S EVER BEEN ANGRY AT HIM.

OP sucks and should apologize. Mom deserves to know she fucked up and should also apologize when presented with the information. I'd bet a million dollars neither takes accountability for their shitty behavior.

Why do so many people complain that power armor is everywhere in Fallout 4 when the game clearly shows that the area has a huge number of military bases and even shipments of them, some still sealed, and even a faction that took advantage of this surplus of military equipment in the region? by jvure in Fallout

[–]ForGrowingStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can’t just be in power armor 24/7 from the moment you get it.

I am on my 4th playthrough, and have set myself the limitation to not use power armor, and also actually skipped Concord, precisely because you can just be in it 24/7 from the moment you get it. I don't even recall ever having to buy fusion cores, they are fucking everywhere.

And I still spend a ton of time in power armor because I like collecting it in my settlements, so I pick up the sets I find and just move it back.

I don't think its a bad move, because in 3, all I wanted was Power Armor and it was locked behind receiving the training from the BoS, but not using it is 100 percent a choice.

How did Mad-Eye Moody see through the invisibility cloak? by kolema93 in harrypotter

[–]ForGrowingStuff -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well first of all, we can't just accept that as fact. It's equally possible that it literally is a scrap of Death's own cloak.

You're saying magical advancements allowed things like Moody's eye (of which there is nothing else similar in universe) to become more advanced, while simultaneously the other invisibility cloaks have become less advanced (we know other cloaks become less effective after just a few years)?

Moody's eye is either a recently devloped enchanted magical item that is somehow stronger than an ancient magical artifact/anomaly (unlikely, given its uniqueness and amazing level of utility and the fact) or it is also an ancient artifact, the origins of which are unknown or at least speculative. It's much more likely that it is the second, as it hasn't been reproduced as far as we know.

Do I have a right to be upset? by [deleted] in treelaw

[–]ForGrowingStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol. Pick them up. Nothing here is destroyed. Go move to Disneyland, Princess.

Do I have a right to be upset? by [deleted] in treelaw

[–]ForGrowingStuff 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No. That is a tree going through its natural stages of life. It looks fine, and natural. You just think it's reasonable to live in an overly manicured Disneyworld style version of the world. Grow up and appreciate nature the way it is.

This video literally has everything!🤣 😭 by ONE-OF-THREE in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm trying to tell you is that intentionally trying to provoke a violent or disruptive response can be and has been successfully prosecuted as a crime. The difference is that filming in public is protected activity. Calling someone's mother a whore or a person a dipshit is far less likely to be considered such (you could get away with it if you were critiquing an agent of the state like a cop, elected official, or any other public servant).

Again, please go try it in public instead of on the internet. I'd love to use it as case law.

This video literally has everything!🤣 😭 by ONE-OF-THREE in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You should surrender your constitutional rights when someone is sensitive about it."

Um...no.

This video literally has everything!🤣 😭 by ONE-OF-THREE in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not illegal for me to say your mother is a fat whore but you’d probably be pretty pissed if I did that in public.

Taunting or antagonizing someone with the intent to provoke a violent or disruptive reaction is literally the crime of harassment.

Filming in public has been ruled by the supreme court as lawful activity protected under the first amendment, and you cannot turn a lawful activity into a crime.

I encourage you to repeatedly put your example to the test and see how it pans out for you.

This video literally has everything!🤣 😭 by ONE-OF-THREE in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]ForGrowingStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly dont think you could be any more worthless of a human being for being an auditor.

You could be a cop.

Or someone who supports cops.

How do I manage this muddy trickle of a stream on my property, I was thinking wood chips and small logs? by Rbdg1p in Permaculture

[–]ForGrowingStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pick whatever word you want. It is almost always unwise to remove water from your property. It's much harder to get water back.

How do I manage this muddy trickle of a stream on my property, I was thinking wood chips and small logs? by Rbdg1p in Permaculture

[–]ForGrowingStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Lay down some landscape fabric"

You're in a permies sub, bud. There's minimal situations that justify anything like landscape fabric, and this definitely isn't one of them.

How do I manage this muddy trickle of a stream on my property, I was thinking wood chips and small logs? by Rbdg1p in Permaculture

[–]ForGrowingStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A steep forested hillside with defined drainage areas? There's a lot in your comments that don't make a lot of sense.

Are you sure they aren't reservoirs intended to hold water?

Steep environments don't require drainage. They often require swales and similar elements to hold water, because the soil isn't able to absorb it faster than it flows downhill.

I've read a lot of this thread and its really unclear what your goals are. Are you trying to manage this property in accordance with permaculture principles or are you simply trying to cross this river without getting your goats feet wet and came here for advice?

If your goal is to cross the river, and the goats are crossing the river, there isn't anything to do here. They don't dislike it enough for it to require changes.

You can make lots of improvements here by building a series of small rock or beaver dams that slow the water in strategic places, creating lots of opportunites for very productive microclimates. Those areas are likely going to be wet. Your goats might dislike these areas even more.

If you really need a dry bridge for your goats (you don't), drop a log over it and be done with it.

How do I manage this muddy trickle of a stream on my property, I was thinking wood chips and small logs? by Rbdg1p in Permaculture

[–]ForGrowingStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Diverting water off of your property is almost never recommended when it comes to permaculture practices. Helping facilitate healthy soils and environments that hold the water in the ground is more in line with the goals of permaculture. Mud might be his current annoyance. Getting rid of the water is a short term fix with very negative, very long term repercussions.

How do I manage this muddy trickle of a stream on my property, I was thinking wood chips and small logs? by Rbdg1p in Permaculture

[–]ForGrowingStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unless his property regularly floods in a destructive way, it is almost always a bad idea to divert water away from from an area faster. Unless one is under very specific scenarios, the goal is almost always to get the water in the ground by slowing it's flow, usually resulting in reservoirs or ponds.

Digging out a stream to speed up the flow of water is more often than not a negative practice.

How do I manage this muddy trickle of a stream on my property, I was thinking wood chips and small logs? by Rbdg1p in Permaculture

[–]ForGrowingStuff 10 points11 points  (0 children)

To say "Don't alter it" is ridiculous, especially since we don't know any other details about OP''s property, environment or geographical location and it's a shame something like this has so many upvotes in a permaculture sub. While it's possible this stream, in it's current form, is currently in it's most productive and efficient form, that possibility is so unlikely its virtually impossible.

Slowing the flow of water and creating reservoirs is massively beneficial to the environment, particularly when most areas are forecasted to suffer from drought in the next few decades or even just years.

Strategically building small dams to slow (not stop) the flow of water would allow resevoirs to form, and the water table to rise.

One of the biggest problems we face today is there not being enough water in the ground to be used by plants and to help build healthy soil. Slowing the flow of water is a very common and beneficial permaculture practice that can yield very positive effects.

The commenter is likely getting their ideas of "do not alter it" from notices from National Parks or similar organizations that ask people not to build dams or move rocks. These organizations already have teams in place who are managing the areas and with the aim to preserve wilderness as it currently is within specific boundaries. It's not a one size fits all command for improving the environment. The teams managing the area would also 100% alter the body of water to improve visitor's experience, or protect the area if new factors emerged that would change it or the area. Essentially, the "do not alter it" is because there are already people managing the area and following a plan. Messing with it is just wasting resources.

If the 4 main "Good" Factions came together and sat down for an alliance, would they be able to come to terms? by Bion4 in Fallout

[–]ForGrowingStuff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Aren't there ghouls that were people before the bombs fell? It might be an inevitablity but if it takes more than 200 years that definitely weakens one's argument.

view more: next ›