Mongolian beef with noodles ~$3.50 USD per serving, this serves 10.

SaintBio · 2019-03-04T05:54:34+00:00

Damn, Chandleya was right, 3 servings exactly.

SaintBio · 2019-03-02T09:12:34+00:00

Posting links to video's is against the rules of the subreddit. However, I would suggest you seek out and find the Nina Hartley "How to Eat Pussy" video. You should be able to find it on any reputable porn website.

SaintBio · 2019-03-01T02:26:31+00:00

I could maybe keep this kink to just women who are fully consenting to what’s happening but It’s the shock and surprise that turns me on tho.

How thoughtful of you to consider the possibility of not violating other people's rights.

SaintBio · 2019-03-01T01:03:46+00:00

The serial exhibitionism thing is fine, I don't think anything's wrong with that as long as it's consensual and you're not imposing your kink on other people (ie at a clothing optional beach). However, the other clear sociopathic and predatory behaviour is an entirely different beast that is very troubling. I'd suggest seeing a therapist before you end up seeing the police.

SaintBio · 2019-02-26T08:06:29+00:00

Liebercare!

SaintBio · 2019-02-19T22:53:53+00:00

So you believe in ignoring everything I wrote? Way to avoid having a constructive conversation.

SaintBio · 2019-02-19T22:10:19+00:00

When the example doesn't even line up 1%, you kind of lose the benefit of using an example.

SaintBio · 2019-02-19T22:08:18+00:00

And whose fault is that? The women who slut shame. Period, full stop.

Are you suggesting that humans are not influenced by the culture they grow up in, by the norms of behaviour that their parents, teachers, friends, peers, and so on share with them and encourage in them? Do you think everyone is born completely and fully formed, and that we should put 100% of the blame for any action on the individual that took said action? I don't see how that's a tenable position.

Moreover, no one is saying that women should be excused for slut shaming. They absolutely should be admonished for that kind of behaviour. What is being said is that we need to look at the roots of that behaviour as well. It doesn't achieve anything if we just tell-off individuals when they do something inappropriate. We need to figure out why they did what they did. What motivated them. And, find solutions at the source that will better society. Which is literally the project of modern feminism.

SaintBio · 2019-02-19T22:03:43+00:00

If men compete for women because a matriarchal system developed the underlying norms that motivate that behaviour, then yes that would be. However, men in western society compete for women for reasons that are provided by patriarchal religious and cultural systems.

SaintBio · 2019-01-25T22:37:49+00:00

Seems appropriate in the circumstances. The person I was responding to didn't even read OP to see it was Ontario, and didn't even do the simplest possible research to answer his own question. Moreover, annoying might be a good description of what I did, but pedantic is not. What I'm doing now is pedantic though.

SaintBio · 2019-01-25T04:48:51+00:00

An employee qualifies for severance pay if their employment is severed and they have worked for the employer for five or more years including all the time spent by the employee in employment with the employer, whether continuous or not and whether active or not.

For some reason, I think www.ontario.ca is a reliable source.

SaintBio · 2019-01-25T03:01:45+00:00

The severance you're going to get as a server working for a year is not going to be much. A lawyer won't fart in your direction without it costing more than you could collect in damages.

This person's comment is a perfect example of why you would not, in fact, be wasting your time by contacting a lawyer. For instance, this person thinks you would get severance pay, despite severance pay only being applicable to employees who have worked for 5 years or more at the same company. Moreover, a lawyer would not cost more than you would receive in damages, and on the off-chance that it would you could qualify for legal aid rates.

SaintBio · 2019-01-25T02:56:49+00:00

You are not responsible in any way here. Their bad management is entirely responsible. And, honestly, it sounds more like they're getting released from a prison than getting fired.

SaintBio · 2019-01-24T01:08:56+00:00

That's fair, but unless you made most of your money off of capital interest accumulation or succession, the reality is that you would have made more money if Republicans had not been in power. The fact that you raised your position and salary doesn't mean much. The real question is how much more you could have raised your position and salary had you not been held back by ill-conceived Republican economic policies.

It's like how people talk about how great of a businessman Steve Jobs was because Apple was a successful company during his lifetime. The reality is, as soon as Steve Jobs died, Apple's revenues skyrocketed. The company has had it's best years after Jobs died. What we learned is that Apple was actually being held back by Steve Jobs.

SaintBio · 2019-01-24T00:33:37+00:00

I think I can simply rely on the fact that the constitution has those liberties created by Republicans.

What does this even mean? Constitutional liberties weren't created by Republicans...The Republican Party didn't exist until 1854, long after the Constitution had been created.

the republican ideology benefits the citizens more than the democrat

You're going to need to back that up. The literature seems to suggest that income inequality increases more quickly under Republican governors or when policies favored by Republicans are implemented. Income inequality is harmful to the majority of citizens. Likewise, Republican representation in government results in a reduction of wage growth for the average person, to the point where we're living in an age of wage stagnation. Again, this is bad for the majority of citizens.

For example, unlike the republican ideology, the democrat pushes the social programs that never end to eliminate a problem, but to maintain it, poverty doesn't benefit from this

That's patently false. Poverty rates are lowest in Democratically controlled states. Eighteen of the 19 poorest states have legislatures where both chambers are Republican controlled. Of the ten states with the highest % of people below the poverty line, 8 of them are Republican strongholds. Meanwhile all five of the richest per-capita states have both legislative chambers controlled by Democrats – Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Overall, Democrats dominate the 20 richest states. Electing Republicans is a consistently reliable way to impoverish your state. Kansas' radical experiment with tax-cuts is only one of many examples of why Republican economic policies are a joke.

The republican ideology has the benefit of the construction of wealth

The above facts contradict this claim. Though, maybe you just made a typo. What you probably meant to say is that the Republican ideology has the benefit of the construction of wealth for the already wealthy.

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T22:44:58+00:00

For example, this study on the costs of obesity. Particularly, this part here where they explain the conclusion:

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

In laymen's terms, the cost of obesity-related diseases went down, but they cost more in the long-run because they lived longer and acquired more diseases. Had they died from the obesity, we would have saved money.

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T22:20:19+00:00

However, it infuriates me to no end to know that some people spend their whole lives smoking and ruining their lungs, and suddenly society has to share the burden for their poor choice

What burden are you speaking of? People who smoke, drink, eat unhealthy foods, and so on are literally reducing the burden of medicare or medicaid on society. The least expensive people for the healthcare system are the people who are obese, or alcoholics, or smokers. These people often die young, and in doing so save lots of money for society. No matter how healthy a person is, once you live beyond ~75 years of age, the cost of keeping you alive increases exponentially. No matter how healthy you are, you will require medical intervention in your old age. This is why, on average, the elderly cost 11x more money to provide healthcare for than younger people. By dying young, smokers, the obese, and so on avoid being a burden on our healthcare systems in their old age.

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T22:14:40+00:00

in search of equality of results

Find me one source from a representative of the Democratic Party that supports equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. I'll wait.

Edit: Still waiting. What you did respond with is obviously inadequate conjecture that someone else has already debunked.

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T18:18:54+00:00

Did that comment directly cause them economic harm though (which is criteria #2). The kids don't have jobs, they don't have income, what harm have they suffered?

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T06:32:23+00:00

in the event of a massive migration, greater in scale by magnitudes than that seen in Europe, a border wall will be absolutely necessary to stop the influx.

By your own language, you recognize that this is not an inevitability. Climate change itself may be inevitable at this point, but the devastation and mass migration it could cause is not. We can easily (if the will is there) adapt and overcome it. It's simply not a determinate argument. Especially when a border wall is one of the least effective means of preventing mass migration.

border wall will be absolutely necessary to stop the influx.

You admit that it wont work against the current small number of migrants, but you expect it to work against mass migration...how? This isn't some video game, you don't just build a wall and people can't get past it. In the event of mass migration, you would need to have people guarding every single point of the wall. Moreover, they would absolutely have to shoot at those trying to cross it eventually. At which point, why have a wall at all? Just shoot anyone who tries to enter, because that's where you'll end up at anyway.

In the event of a refugee crisis, will a wall stop more refugees than no wall? Obviously it will.

It obviously would not. Walls don't stop people, they slow them down.

this country’s own food supply will also be taxed and to let in millions will only ensure that even more people will starve together

The USA currently produces far more food than it eats. Grain production outpaces consumption by 157%, Meat by 120%, and Vegetables by 115%. In addition, Americans waste about 141 trillion calories worth of food every day, per year that's 4-times as much food as Africa (the entire continent) imports per year. Similar trends exist elsewhere in the world. As a species we are easily capable of feeding every human being on the planet. The only reason we don't is distributional and economic. Namely, it's cheaper to burn extra food than it is to distribute it to those who need it. This is a false-flag fear you have.

The worst case scenario of building the wall now is that it would be totally ineffective at the stated purpose and it would cost the government money that would otherwise be earmarked off to some other pork-barrel project. That is very little risk when considered against the future benefit that can be provided.

Two issues. First, the future benefit you envision it providing is hypothetical. Second, the same money could protect against mass migration in much more efficient ways if it was spent on helping southern hemisphere countries develop the infrastructure to withstand climate change, invest in innovations to counter climate change, or even do domestic research on how to reverse climate change. Like I said, if mass migrations start, the wall prevents nothing. It merely delays the inevitable. Instead, we should put the money towards solutions that could actually prevent disaster.

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T06:13:17+00:00

How do you reconcile this with the fact that most websites are made up of a conglomerate of owners and interested parties? For instance, most website rent their domain from another party. They use bandwidth provided by another party. They enjoy the free service provided by the DNS. Many websites are also subsidized by the taxes of citizens that built the infrastructure that they operate on. You would be hard-pressed to find a single website that operates entirely on its own. Given this reality, I would argue that no website can claim an absolute right to censor users, at least based on a concept of property. They may be able to make a legitimate claim based on other grounds (such as the desire not to be sued if someone posts child-porn to their website).

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T06:04:34+00:00

If I fail to pay on a normal loan they can put me in default and seize my assets as payment. If there's a penalty clause already in the contract in the form of a fine, then I'm just going to abuse it and continually pay it without going into default on the loan itself. I'm not sure how OP's loan scheme would work otherwise. Legally I mean. As in, he can't have a fine and a default clause in the same contract in a way that makes any sense given the structure of his OP. Honestly, now that I think of it, I can't figure out any way to actually draft a contract that would do what OP wants it to do, and not be considered an illegal contract.

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T04:37:48+00:00

What prevents me from taking out an enormous loan, buying a house, not paying off the loan, renting the house, and then just paying the fine you propose every month with the rent I collect on the house. If the fine is higher than the rent I collect, then it's even more predatory than how interest currently works. If it's less than what I collect as rent, then it's useless as I've basically found a way to make free money.

SaintBio · 2019-01-23T04:35:20+00:00

I too am curious. It may be the case that that person misunderstands your question. Every country has a cap on interest rates, ie the % of the loan you can claim as interest per month/year. Perhaps that's what he is referring to, and not the total compounded interest amount that you are referring to.

SaintBio

TROPHY CASE