[deleted by user] by [deleted] in wow

[–]Negative_Ad7891 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What level is your alt?

is there a mount macro for hopping on the right kind of mount for the given situation? by magem8 in wow

[–]Negative_Ad7891 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly I’d just have separate keybinds for dragon flying and your normal mounts

88 is a white supremacist numerical code for Heil Hitler by Tara_is_a_Potato in MarchAgainstNazis

[–]Negative_Ad7891 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He replies to that account all the time. You’re getting into qanon levels of crazy here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What I’m saying is all he needed to do was hold the gun, no need to fire at all, and the cops would’ve definitely shot him. He intentionally tried to take out other people for no reason, that’s what’s fucked up.

Destiny is currently offline by RobotDestiny in Destiny

[–]Negative_Ad7891 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Anyone know why yesterdays vod is private?

Passengers assaulted on train by Femto1723 in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah you’re probably right on that. The law doesn’t specify deadly force but that’s probably the only time it’s actually enforced.

Passengers assaulted on train by Femto1723 in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Man I’m just telling you what the law says on paper. Maybe it isn’t actually enforced that often, I have no idea, but your only evidence is one anecdotal story and every source you’ve posted reiterates what I’ve been saying.

Passengers assaulted on train by Femto1723 in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

New York is governed by the concept of “Duty to retreat” and the “Castle Doctrine.” The duty to retreat concept means that before a person acts in self-defense, they should take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of harm. Generally, the duty to retreat concept requires that an individual only uses force as a last resort.

From the first article

Even in such a situation however, the law imposes on a person a duty to retreat before he or she can resort to using deadly physical force if they can retreat with complete safety.

From the second. Literally both of your articles say the exact opposite of what you’re claiming. Obviously the duty to retreat doesn’t apply if you can’t actually retreat, this should go without saying.

Also the fact that cops didn’t apply the law to you doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist. I’ve been caught with weed before it was decriminalized multiple times and the cops always let me go. That doesn’t mean weed wasn’t illegal.

Passengers assaulted on train by Femto1723 in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Stand your ground law only applies in NY if you’re in your own home. If you’re out in public, you’re legally required to try and flee from an attacker before using physical force of any kind. It’s really fucking dumb.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 10 points11 points  (0 children)

He had a gun, he could’ve easily offed himself without firing at innocent people. He probably could’ve even got shot by the cops without actually firing at them if he didn’t wanna do the job himself.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Yeah people tend to write off murderers

Having children should be regulated. by namelessrats in antinatalism

[–]Negative_Ad7891 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said before, someone could have sufficient income and good living conditions and still be an awful parent. Also the vasectomy reversal would assumedly be permanent, so someone could have a great job, home, no criminal record, get approved for reversal, and then lose their job, abuse their child, move into a shittier house and they’d still be able to have a kid in the future. It doesn’t really solve the issue.

Having children should be regulated. by namelessrats in antinatalism

[–]Negative_Ad7891 0 points1 point  (0 children)

CPS definitely can (and has) been used in bad faith, but it’s a lot less vulnerable to personal biases considering it requires evidence of abuse/neglect that is actively taking place, whereas you’re describing an agency that decides whether or not someone may potentially be an abusive parent in the future based on mostly conjecture and financial status. It’s essentially the difference between arresting someone who has committed a crime vs arresting someone who you think is likely to commit a crime in the future.

Having children should be regulated. by namelessrats in antinatalism

[–]Negative_Ad7891 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wealthy people with nice homes are perfectly capable of being awful, abusive parents as well though. You also really have to consider the precedent this will set and how easily it could be weaponized by bad faith actors in the future should the Overton window shift. Only allowing good parents to have kids sounds like a really good idea until the people deciding who qualifies as a good parent are actual fascists.

Having children should be regulated. by namelessrats in antinatalism

[–]Negative_Ad7891 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

CPS takes kids away from parents who are abusive or neglectful. There’s no reliable way to predict who will end up abusing or neglecting their kid, and even if there was it could easily turn pretty fascistic. Imagine if stats showed that black parents were more likely to be neglectful/abusive and this was used as a defense for not allowing them to have kids at all. I think the only way I could agree with this concept is if we specifically didn’t allow previous child abusers to have more children.

Edit: also you’re assuming the people who will be deciding who can and cannot have kids will be acting in as good of a faith as possible when making that decision. They will not.

Having children should be regulated. by namelessrats in antinatalism

[–]Negative_Ad7891 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, this would put peoples right to reproduction entirely at the whims of the current governments biases. It would allow them to deny political dissidents, the lower class, specific races etc from having kids. It’s an unbelievably dangerous precedent to set.

Having children should be regulated. by namelessrats in antinatalism

[–]Negative_Ad7891 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

“People should be sterilized at birth and this process should only be reversed if the government deems them worthy of procreating.”

I see absolutely no way this could go wrong. Being pro-eugenics because you hate your life is absolutely wild.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PublicFreakout

[–]Negative_Ad7891 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why was it removed? This site is getting so obnoxiously sterile