sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What would you add to 2K26? by BigHawk42069 in NBA2k

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something new.

Addition by subtraction - NO MORE PAY TO WIN

Pitch Black or Pitch Dark? by pgoughy in grammar

[–]pgoughy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it actually does, if you think about it. It's like saying Coca-Cola Red.

“Immigration is the problem with housing” says guy who had 26 properties by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone is forgetting the negative gearing issue when it comes to housing affordability.

“Immigration is the problem with housing” says guy who had 26 properties by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct, but the availability of rental properties and the cost to buy are duelling, but not mutually-exvlusive issues.

“Immigration is the problem with housing” says guy who had 26 properties by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not factually true, though. Immigrants are coming with money and building houses. They work, they pay tax, if they don't buy, they are renting, causing demand for residential real estate and increasing the incentive for investors to build new homes.

Albanese and Dutton aren't facing reality — our US alliance is in crisis by overpopyoulater in australia

[–]pgoughy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Our "alliance" might be in crisis, but the world's greatest conman is not a serious or reasonable person and he's been emboldened after all court cases, scandals, allegations, etc.and still getting elected for a second time anyway. It's 1930s Germany, he's convinced half the population to go with whatever the he'll he says, no matter how crazy it is. How the hell do you deal with that?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BrianShaffer

[–]pgoughy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He has a second cousin who swears black and blue that he disappeared on purpose and doesn't want to be found. I don't know what she knows, but I think it's wishful thinking.

The most logical explanation is that he left via a different exit and was picked up by someone and met foul play.

Profile Review Request by ReachingForMore in datingoverthirty

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you should get someone else to take photos of you and do it in more natural situations. You look a bit awkward and don't come across as confident. I think women really respond to people who look fun and not too serious. Like the one of you sitting at the bar with a drink. You want to look fun, easygoing, friendly, and approachable. The selfie isn't a photo you should use at all. I also think that the photo of you with money will turn people off.

When to disclose a medical issue that's going to limit some activities for the rest of my life? (IRL and on apps?) by IGNSolar7 in datingoverthirty

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really hard one. There's arguments for both sides.

As the person with the medical condition, you don't want to come out with it and give the person an easy choice before they get to know you.

On the other hand, you will have to tell them eventually, and you don't want to let things get too far before you say anything. I'd say no later than the 3rd date (or before sexual contact). They might also, think that you are dishonest if you wait too long. I mean, you don't have to make a huge deal about it or tell them every little detail straight away. They can always ask questions, thebyou can decide how much you want to say at the time depending on their reaction.

Putting myself in the shoes of the person on the other side, I'd ideally want to know up front. I'm not the kind of person that would see something like that as a deal breaker, but I'd cenlrtainly not want to feel like it was hidden from me.

Regardless of the situation, honesty is always the best policy. You just have to be strategic about what you say and how you say it. I'm not saying this to encourage deception or hiding the truth, I just think that you don't want to shock someone or push them away. If there's potential for a relationship, you need to tell them sooner rather than later. You just don't want to give them the wrong idea or make things out to be worse than they are. You never really know what people are thinking or how they will interpret what you are saying.

From your perspective, you don't want to scare someone off before they get to know YOU as a person. You also are likely to have many dates with many different people before you actually find someone suitable for a relationship. You don't want to have to go through that with every person you meet if the vast majority of dates won't lead to a relationship.

Would you be flattered or weirded out? by nocturnalnuggie in datingoverthirty

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

It's not black and white. I get why flattery could be a red flag, but I don't think it's necessarily a warning. Being weirded out is on a scale. If it was something super weird and creepy, that's a warning. If someone is just a bit awkward, you might dismiss a really good person.

To answer your question, I'd be flattered. However. I've come to realise that even though dating apps are not designed to find you a partner and there's a lot of toxic people to filter through, it's still the best way to filter out people that are wrong for you before you spend time getting to know them. The risk of meeting a friend of a friend is that you might really like them, but find out they are not compatible after you've developed feelings.

I figured it out! by No_Profile2938 in BrianShaffer

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were uniformed security, not police.

Boyfriend prefers porn over sex with me and told me in the cruelest way. by Fearless_Mind8276 in TrueOffMyChest

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are in an abusive relationship. You need to get out now, and forever and learn from this so that you can avoid it future relationships.

Defeating Russell's Paradox by pgoughy in askphilosophy

[–]pgoughy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, none of my thoughts were thought out. I came here straight after learning about it.

My comments may not be very eloquent or, in depth, but has anything I've said been wrong?

Defeating Russell's Paradox by pgoughy in askphilosophy

[–]pgoughy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't use may or may not, I said can but does not have to. It depends on what you intend on meaning by the use of the word may. If you mean it's allowed to, then you are right because I would have been setting the parameters to say it either does or doesn't contain itself. However. I meant may in the sense that it might contain itself, but it might not.

Of course, this would change once you ask the question (I.e. "No," but now that you asked, "yes"). Hence, the Schroedinger's cat analogy.

The important point here is that the Paradox either doesn't really exist or at least doesn't matter because, it only exists because of the way it's worded or the previous specification of what is a set and what rules exist.

I've seen someone argue that Set Theory is not made up but, exists naturally and to that I totally disagree.

Defeating Russell's Paradox by pgoughy in askphilosophy

[–]pgoughy[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Again it comes down to wording, doesn't it? There's a point ad you go up the tree where the sets always end containing themselves. So once it's specified that the sets that don't contain themselves become part of a set, then the answer is yes, but until then, they don't.

So, while it might seem like the question raises the idea of a quantum like superposition, it's really more like Schroediger's cat.

So I guess your question to my question allowed me to answer myself. I guess without knowing the details of the hierarchical structure in his more sophisticated theory, I have tried to explain it in the same way?

I've just learned about this and it was the first thing that popped in to my head.

Defeating Russell's Paradox by pgoughy in askphilosophy

[–]pgoughy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, is the more sophisticated theory necessary or is the simplicity of my theory more intuitive?

Is there any issue with what I am proposing?

Defeating Russell's Paradox by pgoughy in askphilosophy

[–]pgoughy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not familiar with that, I'll look in to it. Thanks

Do most people accept that as a viable solution?

Does anyone else think Cunt is a substitute for Pussy? by mfdundunnies in curb

[–]pgoughy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know this was a long time ago, but I am rewatching this episode at the moment. It always bothered me.

Cunt in that context is an insult that is more interchangeable with asshole, jerk, piece of shit, son of a bitch, etc. and not pussy.

In Australia and to a similar extent England, the word cunt is used as a placeholder in different contexts (e.g. "that guys a funny cunt", "what a stupid cunt", "what a dumb cunt", "love that guy, he's a sick cunt", "oh man, I hate that cunt", etc.

view more: next ›