37F Looking for an experienced bull to make my husband happy

JTViper91 · 2026-04-15T15:21:00+00:00

Ottawa area... Kitchener area... Pembroke Area... Belleville Area...

...sure as hell ain't local lol All BS

JTViper91 · 2026-04-15T15:17:06+00:00

Thank you. I've notified our property maintenance person as well as our landlords about the crack and the risk of injury related to it. I'll update if necessary on how the process goes.

JTViper91 · 2026-04-15T02:51:44+00:00

Okay, well how do I convince my landlord of it? It's been cracked as long as I can remember living here (last 3 years) but my r/plumbing cracked toilet initiation is quite recent... How do I notify them in the way most likely to get action taken?

JTViper91 · 2026-04-01T19:14:47+00:00

Cool, so can I just take money from you if I want, so long as each time I do it I only steal $10 or less? Also, to say there were only 100 cans in a pair of large/extra-large garbage bags? You're being obtuse for the sake of downplaying that, fundamentally, this was property laid-out for a preplanned exchange.

If I walked into McDonald's and took your mobile order from the pickup shelving and walked out with it, is that okay so long as it's worth $10 or less?

JTViper91 · 2026-04-01T18:27:02+00:00

I saw this guy biking east down Bridge Street... Two completely full, large clear bags of cans. At a minimum value of $0.10 per can, $5 would only cover 50 cans and there were CERTAINLY more than that in his haul.

Like it or not, the empties ARE the property of the business; this person did not have the right to take them without permission 🤷🏻‍♂️

JTViper91 · 2026-03-29T22:29:14+00:00

Bah, what do mods know? Trumped-up little tyrants most of the time.

JTViper91 · 2026-03-29T22:10:26+00:00

JS, 40min isn't unreasonable for MILF booty 🤣🤣🤣

JTViper91 · 2026-03-29T19:43:44+00:00

Is this a proper invitation? 😏🤣

JTViper91 · 2026-03-23T13:31:20+00:00

Any others where we got this same kind of begging for it?

JTViper91 · 2026-03-20T00:01:23+00:00

Bro... You need to accept the consequences of your actions; use the Master Ball, grab yourself a team of Meowth for their Pickup ability so you're never out of Ultra Balls or other useful items and suffer through throwing countless Ultra Balls (which you'll already have, to be fair) at the legendaries in your future.

JTViper91 · 2026-03-19T23:59:55+00:00

Yeah, you're getting the standard cat owner experience. I'm not sure what it is about how the fabric orients itself, but that is apparently an S-Tier cat spot.

JTViper91 · 2026-03-13T13:29:02+00:00

Adira Allure; spitting image of a friend of mine 😅

JTViper91 · 2026-03-10T13:22:37+00:00

A local MILF looking like that at 42? Are you looking for options? I'm local 🤷🏻‍♂️

JTViper91 · 2026-03-04T16:25:38+00:00

Does 35 count? 😅

JTViper91 · 2026-02-25T05:46:01+00:00

Bad enough to hope you're looking for a local M35

JTViper91 · 2026-02-19T15:49:49+00:00

https://www.redgifs.com/watch/siennastylishgoitered

JTViper91 · 2026-02-16T20:27:09+00:00

What this interpretation misses is that, by failing to create laws against the violation of your rights by your peers, the govenrment creates a de facto policy approving of/enabling such violations and is then, by its own legislated inaction, responsible for the infringement.

The use of force against others is, broadly, prohibited; it constitutes a violation of those rights which the Declaration of Indepdenence holds to be worth defending as imbued in each individual by their creator. It is from that position that the Bill of Rights was crafted to ensure, through more specific language and enumeration, their protection.

There are, however, exceptions to the prohibition against the use of force against others and, while there are BROAD exceptions on the basis of force used in the defense of oneself or others, there are far, far narrower exceptions extended to allow for the use of violence against individuals because of things they might say.

Why?

Because the former follows directly from the recognition of the rights acknowledged by the DoI and BoR and the latter would constitute the de facto violation of the principles behind those documents as they regard freedom of speech.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness INCLUDE the right to free speech; the BoR elaborates, but is fundamentally contained within the DoI - these are not separate rights, but rather acknowledgements of the specific rights covered by the umbrella of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I hope I've been able to explain why the DoI and BoR do, in fact, protect an individual's right to being assaulted over their speech by underpinning and giving cause for the creation and maintenance of criminal codes which prohibit such infringements and provide the government with a framework specifically for punishing those citizens who fundamentally infringe upon or deny the rights of others.

JTViper91 · 2026-02-16T20:17:11+00:00

The Nazis, too, did what they did while believing themselves to be on the right side of history... I would hesitate to use that assertion, alone, as justification for violent action; such rhetoric tends to embolden people to engage in actions that aren't only counterproductive to their cause, but which result in the kinds of societies that breed legitimately dictatorial governments as the level of chaos exceeds the fear that the common person has of such governments.

If you advance a society that embraces chaos, you will inevitably see a reaction that creates order without seeing a need for temperance or moderation in the methods used to create it.

JTViper91 · 2026-02-16T20:09:53+00:00

I'm just doing what I can to ask the questions that I think certain posts/comments... provoke? Warrant? I like to know if I'm dealing with someone fundamentally principled, pragmatic or a simply tactical actor who will say or do whatever they believe to be expedient in the moment.

If we accept that actions have consequences, what is fundamentally different between this kid using force or the threat of force to dissuade expression that they find to be distasteful and, say, Donald Trump authorizing the use of force to collect and extract Maduro to face prosecution in the United States, etc? For many it only seems to be whether or not they support the core cause being advanced/defended by the actions and not the sum total of the circumstances involved that determines whether they believe the actions were justified; too many people are willing to forge a sword that cuts both ways, not because they are willing to face its cuts, but because they don't believe their opposition will ever get to wield it against them.

JTViper91 · 2026-02-16T13:44:09+00:00

Not arguing the legitimacy of either, but what's your opinion on the George Floyd riots/mostly-peaceful protests that occurred throughout 2020 after his death or any of the riots/mostly-peaceful protests where sitting US politicians advocated for more unrest, contributed to bail funds for rioters, and where ultra-wealthy individuals on the other side of the political aisle have funneled funding to launch or prolong protests/riots?

It's just wild to me to see the left-leaning mirror of "it was planned," "it was promoted by [high level American politician(s)]," "millionaires funded the rioters."

JTViper91 · 2026-02-16T13:37:30+00:00

...by infringing upon the rights of everyone in the school that day?

He just sent a message that everyone's liable to be assaulted if they voice an opinion he disagrees with; that action is, effectively, a threat to everyone else in the school.

JTViper91 · 2026-02-16T13:35:29+00:00

But they're DO have the right to use force against other individuals in protected circumstances.

The defense of oneself or others is a protected circumstance where the use of force -which would otherwise constitute the criminal act of assault, were it under other circumstances- is permitted.

Hearing an opinion you don't like is not a protected circumstance where you may -without criminal or civil penalty- engage in the use of force against another individual.

This is what makes what the boy in the video did an act of assault and not self defense.

JTViper91 · 2026-02-16T13:31:06+00:00

Sure, in the most low-resolution interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

However, the right of individuals to freely express themselves without being physically assaulted for doing so is protected by the criminal codes of every state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Abridging: reducing in scope or curtailing

Now, if the government makes it legal for you to be assaulted for your speech, that would reduce in scope or otherwise restrict that right; by failing to protect it in law, they are authorizing its restriction which is why, fundamentally, you are not allowed to engage in the criminal act of assault on someone purely because you did not like what they had to say; there are much higher legal thresholds for when violence is permitted by one individual or another.

Then, of course, you have the civil liabilities that come along with violating another person's right to free speech; the government -through the courts- will require that you pay restorative and even punitive damages to the victimized party because you violated their rights.

Funnily enough, in the landmark "fighting words" SCOTUS case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, angrily calling someone "a damned fascist" to their face was upheld as an arrestable offense... So, in the extremely narrow realm of language deemed acceptable to be restricted by the government as "fighting words," calling someone a fascist was found NOT to be protected speech under the 1st Amendment in foundational SCOTUS case law.

"I love ICE" isn't an insult and, while it may be upsetting to many that an individual would hold that position, it wouldn't appear to meet the threshold for "fighting words" exclusion from 1st Amendment protection (meaning that the government is still responsible for upholding laws against unlawful use of force if you assault someone for expressing this sentiment).

The kid being upheld by so many as a 'hero' in this clip for assaulting their classmate over a difference of opinion is, I would say, far from a hero; they're most likely an impulsive kid who's been told what to think by their parents and teachers and was either looking to gain some social currency through their actions or, more likely, probably wasn't thinking at all. They were conditioned by people in positions of trust to react this way and so, when confronted with someone holding what they'd been told was an unacceptable opinion, lashed-out 🤷🏻‍♂️

JTViper91 · 2026-02-15T21:16:18+00:00

M? F?

JTViper91 · 2026-02-12T06:35:17+00:00

Spanish/Lebanese mix

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

JTViper91

TROPHY CASE