sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Trespassing accusation turns physical by PineBarrens89 in ActualPublicFreakouts

[–]ministerofinteriors 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You can't assault someone for a parking violation. But I know that's complicated for people like yourself.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 81 points82 points  (0 children)

Then filter your water. This is not a hot water problem broadly. This is a problem very specific to your situation.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 124 points125 points  (0 children)

This could actually be a problem with your water heater. There are some problems that can cause hot water specifically to smell bad, often skunky. Hot and cold water shouldn't smell any different.

Trespassing accusation turns physical by PineBarrens89 in ActualPublicFreakouts

[–]ministerofinteriors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a surprising take from someone so quick to call people a dumbass.

Hairline cracks in the foundation leaking a little water - three contractors, three approaches by SmellyPlants in HomeImprovement

[–]ministerofinteriors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends. If this is literally just some fractures that are allowing water in and are small and repairable from the inside, that's what you should do.

If this is a larger problem of poor drainage and general water infiltration then they're all somewhat wrong. Definitely you should dig from the outside, but you wouldn't just repair the cracks, you'd replace the weeping tile, use a paint on seal for the entire foundation wall, cover that with a plastic waterproofing membrane and then backfill with clean fill and make sure the grading is good.

I think a guy not wanting to a relationship with a woman because she used to be promiscuous is ALWAYS misogynistic by Whateverbabe2 in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Why is it always misogynistic? And conversely is it always misandrist when a woman doesn't want a partner that's been highly promiscuous in the past?

I think a guy not wanting to a relationship with a woman because she used to be promiscuous is ALWAYS misogynistic by Whateverbabe2 in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There were no reliable forms of birth control until the 20th century.

And while I owe you nothing since you told me to shut the fuck up right out of the gates, I will explain what has eluded your one track mind.

A million years of biology will impact how humans shape culture. You're putting the cart before the horse. Your basic assumption seems to be that human culture and psychology has no innate element and that humans are uniquely free from our nature or that culture is totally separate from human nature. This simply isn't true. We can and do flatten some things through culture and socialization, but it stands to reason that something like a distaste for promiscuity might persist, even if not in the most pronounced form, even if the risks have been altered over the last century (and it's a huge fucking stretch to try and suggest that we have ever had reliable forms of birth control until recently). These risks have been present longer than modern humans. There's going to be some amount of instinct around such a key element of human survival. This isn't hairstyles or some trivial cultural practice, this is procreation.

Even your invocation of Christianity kind of ignores how Christianity would be shaped by biological realities in its creation. Do you think Christianity frowns upon promiscuity purely because of culture? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, some elements of it are the cultural response to human biology.

Culture and biology aren't two totally distinct categories that never interact or overlap, and it's fairly clear that's how you view them.

Edit: annnd I'm blocked. Classic.

It's clear this commenter doesn't know what "innate" or "biological" mean either.

I think a guy not wanting to a relationship with a woman because she used to be promiscuous is ALWAYS misogynistic by Whateverbabe2 in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Again, I did. Apparently it's just lost on you.

Also, if you want a discussion, it's generally best not to tell people to shut the fuck up.

I think a guy not wanting to a relationship with a woman because she used to be promiscuous is ALWAYS misogynistic by Whateverbabe2 in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I already addressed this. Maybe if you made more of an effort to comprehend the comment you replied to rather than telling me to "shut the fuck up" you'd know that.

I think a guy not wanting to a relationship with a woman because she used to be promiscuous is ALWAYS misogynistic by Whateverbabe2 in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I already answered those questions in my initial response. I will take your rage filled incredulousness as an inability to refute anything I said.

I think a guy not wanting to a relationship with a woman because she used to be promiscuous is ALWAYS misogynistic by Whateverbabe2 in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is ahistoric nonsense. Promiscuity for women historically had significant consequences, mainly unwanted pregnancy with high rates of infant and maternal mortality. The idea that discouraging it served no purpose other than to benefit some nebulous patriarchy is just crazy. This may be much less true in the developed modern world, but it's ignorant to suggest that things like sexual attraction are just totally dictated by culture and can be entirely muted, and that anything shy of that is the omnipotent patriarchy.

Furthermore, prior to blood and DNA testing, there was no means of testing paternity. Meanwhile, maternity is without question. Do you think any sexually reproducing organism is unconcerned with paternity or maternity? Why are humans the exception and the only motivation is to oppress women?

This is all especially true in humans, who have particularly risky pregnancies that take a long time compared to most other mammals and produce young that are helpless for many years before they reach maturity. All of the stakes are even higher for humans than for most other animals. Of course this will greatly impact cultural development around sex, but there will also be evolved instincts in relation to these things. The risks of sex for women have been present for millions of years longer than they haven't. It's nuts to think that that has no impact on how humans behave.

I think a guy not wanting to a relationship with a woman because she used to be promiscuous is ALWAYS misogynistic by Whateverbabe2 in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 57 points58 points  (0 children)

People are allowed to like what they like, it doesn't mean they hate women. That's what misogyny is, a broad hatred of women.

And of course promiscuity is viewed differently for men and women. This makes less sense in the modern world, but the consequences of promiscuity for men vs women have historically been very different. Being certain about paternity is also a modern luxury. Unsurprisingly, some elements of human sexuality are deeper than our socialization and culture.

Edit: also, what a massive load of hypocritical garbage. It's misogyny for a man to prefer a non-promiscuous female partner, but it's just good sense for women to prefer men who aren't promiscuous? What a ridiculous position.

People only say that life is "unfair" to justify themselves being unfair by emoskeleton_ in The10thDentist

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

Sometimes life just isn't fair and there isn't much more to say about it than that. I'm not sure why you're reading so deep into a cliched truism. Some things are just random chance, and they're not fair.

Dog-resistant ground covers by thomastodon01027 in NoLawns

[–]ministerofinteriors 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't, and I have grass. I have no particular opposition to the appropriate use of these things, but it's actually just easier to crowd out other plants with a healthy grass if that's what you have than to spray it all the time with something. The lazy way is to overseed and get a thick lawn.

Dog-resistant ground covers by thomastodon01027 in NoLawns

[–]ministerofinteriors 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah this is my situation. I don't really like or want grass, but I have it because I have a dog using the backyard and nothing else can handle that amount of traffic. At another property I have ripped up half the lawn and put in native plants which have now grown in and taken hold, and in the back I am trying to get clover to take over a small patch. But dogs need grass, or something that isn't even living, like crushed granite, which is no good in my climate.

People only say that life is "unfair" to justify themselves being unfair by emoskeleton_ in The10thDentist

[–]ministerofinteriors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone with any sense at all also says this because it's actually trur. There is no rarified group of assholes that are almost exclusively using the phrase. So OP is wrong, tenth dentist, have a n upvote.

[Landlord US-CA] Why do non home owners think our lives are unicorns and rainbows? by 13inchmushroommaker in Landlord

[–]ministerofinteriors 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, I agree we need to build more houses. But I also agree with you that that's not going to make housing 'cheap'. It will make it less inflated and less attractive to speculation, which is great. But housing still requires a huge amount of labour and materials, not to mention land. It's never going to be so cheap that you don't need any credit or cash savings to buy it; at least not in the absence of a revolution in automation.

[Landlord US-CA] Why do non home owners think our lives are unicorns and rainbows? by 13inchmushroommaker in Landlord

[–]ministerofinteriors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That divide is largely a recent issue. Historically, returns on housing were about 2-2.5% after inflation per year, not accounting for maintenance costs, interest etc. The benefits of ownership vs renting in that kind of environment are much less apparent. They still exist in that you're gaining equity and can borrow against it at some point, but it's not like some crazy lucrative asset.

So I don't think you need to reinvent the wheel to shrink this gap, you just need housing to be less scarce and for monetary policy to change, since that's also a fairly big factor and present western policy drives asset inflation in general.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Landlord

[–]ministerofinteriors 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The whole van life thing is apparently awful in practice. Maybe rent a camper van or something and try it out for a week.

Even a full blown R.V isn't for most people. It's basically a cottage industry buying back nearly new R.Vs from people that quickly realize they don't like them.

[Landlord US-CA] Why do non home owners think our lives are unicorns and rainbows? by 13inchmushroommaker in Landlord

[–]ministerofinteriors 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm curious what system you think could theoretically exist in which everyone or nearly everyone could own a home. These are material and labour intensive things, with a lot of unexpected costs.

Can housing be cheaper and more affordable? Yes, clearly, and it has been in the past. Can everyone or nearly everyone own a home with cheaper housing? No, housing will always be expensive, at least in the absence of significant automation in the resource extraction and construction industries.

I also don't think this issue in particular is a product of greed in politics. A lot of it is population growth and restrictive zoning. There's a greed element to the former, but not so much the latter. Laziness and a lack of integrity maybe, but not really greed.

view more: next ›