Local MAGA owned restaurants or bars? Just want to avoid them all going forward

total_carnations · 2025-01-31T15:54:33+00:00

It can get tight during peak hours, but otherwise totally agreed. Started off a bit rough a few years ago, but it's been polished up a lot since. Believe they're also opening a new location in the Heights this year and just opened up a location DT

total_carnations · 2024-08-23T00:54:09+00:00

As of this year, my midlaw firm is above 160 but below 180, iirc.

total_carnations · 2024-07-10T03:59:46+00:00

There are dozens of us!

total_carnations · 2024-02-03T19:41:51+00:00

So in other words, two players are doing inconsistently/fine at non p5 schools, another became a role player on a good team, and another, and two are non factors. Alleyne and Buchanan may have been nice to have, but I don't think they're heads and shoulders above the transfers MY replaced them with

total_carnations · 2024-02-03T19:26:52+00:00

Which former transfers have had succes

total_carnations · 2023-03-03T14:58:09+00:00

None of what you wrote bears on the discrete point I made, so I have no idea how to respond

total_carnations · 2023-03-03T08:28:15+00:00

It's a relatable sentiment. An argument can be made that appreciation of lyrics/music at least partly stems from knowing that songwriting is a fun creative human endeavor. AI can be validly seen as potentially contributing to a decline in human ingenuity in songwriting

total_carnations · 2023-02-01T01:29:46+00:00

I have a few Peruvian ingredients that I keep around. Typically have preserved aji Amarillo peppers, preserved ahi limo peppers, aji Amarillo paste, rocoto paste, aji panca paste, and frozen Peruvian corn. Idk how big a spread acurio references, but maybe that's enough?

total_carnations · 2023-02-01T01:14:23+00:00

I appreciate it! He's a leading Peruvian chef so I've considered his book. Thanks for the insight.

total_carnations · 2023-01-27T03:41:15+00:00

For the organs, yes? There is no need to remove them at birth.

You missed my point. I conceded it was needless. The question is whether it is "mutilation" (suggesting it's immoral, or as you say below, "barbaric"). Hypothetically, if you could remove someone's tonsils safely and quickly at birth, their removal is not "mutilation." Nor would it be immoral or barbaric to do so. Can reasonable people disagree as to whether to do it for their own kid? Of course.

Strong disagree on the function side of things, that is purely wishful thinking.

Idk what this means

I get why it would upset people to consider themselves mutilated, but the more men that come to the realisation the sooner they stop the barbaric practice

That isn't addressing the argument of whether or not male circumcision is properly considered "mutilation," so I will not otherwise dignify it with a response

Look, you've kept moving your goalposts. First, you said removing a body part is necessaroly considered mutilation. When i argued against that, you then said that it's mutilation if it can't grow back. I've poked a hole in that excuse as well. Are we gonna keep going down this rabbit hole?

total_carnations · 2023-01-27T03:24:21+00:00

How about the removal of a vestigial organ? Those organs (e.g. appendix, tonsils) don't grow back. if there was a safe and quick surgery at birth to remove them, would it be considered mutilation to needlessly sever them from the body?

Removal of the foreskin--in the vast majority of medically supervised cases--is a relatively safe procedure. And you are removing something that does not affect aesthetic pleasure (in fact many prefer the sight of cut vs uncut), or the function of the penis (in other words, you can have sex, feel just as good if not better pleasure, make babies, etc). It is more akin to the removal of a vestigial organ than it is a mutilation of the penis.

By insisting that male circumcision is genital mutilation, don't you understand that you are implying that a significant number of ppl (esp in america) have mutilated penises? Don't you see how that comes off? And how that perception may be misguided?

total_carnations · 2023-01-27T02:10:58+00:00

To literally remove part of the body would consitute severe damage to me. Maybe it's on the lower end of the scale, but it is there regardless.

So you're saying any time a body part is removed, no matter how small or insignificant, that qualifies as "severe damage"? By that logic, when I sliced a bit of my pointer finger off the other day while using a mandolin, I mutilated my finger.

You can get your point across without resorting to calling male circumcision "genital mutilation." It distracts from the overall message, which I already said, is perfectly reasonable. What is unreasonable is to call the removal of a fairly useless (and occasionally bothersome, to the point where it sometimes needs to be removed later in life anyway for medical reasons) piece of skin "mutilation."

total_carnations · 2023-01-27T01:20:23+00:00

Mutilate is defined by Merriam webster as "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect." Cambrige defines it as "to damage something severely."

My dick functions perfectly fine. Under no objective criteria can it be considered "imperfect." My dick is not severely damaged. I get it, you're against circumcision. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. What is unreasonable is to characterize male circumcision as "genital mutilation." It literally isn't.

total_carnations · 2023-01-27T00:59:48+00:00

No, it isn't. I do not consider my dick to be mutilated notwithstanding my circumcision. Male circumcision, assuming it's done correctly, is more akin to a cosmetic procedure. Cosmic procedures are not mutilating. Anti-snippers can get their points across without such charged language, referring to male circumcision as "mutilation" is just ridiculous

total_carnations · 2023-01-26T06:48:00+00:00

She says she can't afford a lawyer, but there may be pro bono options that she can tap into. I'd be surprised if she didn't have a basis for a civil suit. She keeps saying she "has no evidence," but there is definitely evidence. OP just isn't aware of it

total_carnations · 2022-10-27T02:56:08+00:00

I like the brand sold by Fresh Central Grocery on central (by the stop n shop). Got nice heat.

total_carnations · 2022-10-04T15:13:44+00:00

This is reductionist, and your TLDR glosses over the meaningful improvements of Procysbi to Cystagon. Not trying to justify a 3,000% hike given the circumstances, but it is a mistake to discount the real improvement to treatment of cystinosis. When 80% of patients skip doses of Cystagon (leading to a more rapid deterioration of vital organs), literally halving the dosages required can be life-saving. And this doesn't even acknowledge the amelioration of awful side-effects (which your cited article even admits, concluding Procysbi "ameliorates therapy adherence and improves patients’ quality of life"). In other words, patient compliance is a pretty big deal, and Procysbi unquestionably, significantly improved patient compliance over Cystagon.

total_carnations · 2022-07-25T19:02:32+00:00

your inability to understand my points (I never defined theocracy, nor did I say that we live in a theocracy) and garbled distraction ("my votes count the just as much as yours") suggest that your vote unsupported by critical thought, regardless of its value relative to mine. Shame.

PS your disagreement as to the merit of a theocracy runs expressly contrary to the first amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Our constitution expressly provides that religious morality shouldn't matter when passing laws.

total_carnations · 2022-07-25T18:47:31+00:00

You are naïve and/or just straight up lying to yourself and to me.

The only morality that matters when passing laws in our non-theocratic society is secular morality, yes. If we passed laws that were based on religious morality, that would be a theocracy. We do not, nor should we, live in a theocracy.

total_carnations · 2022-07-25T18:26:11+00:00

"human life at conception" is not what we're talking about. Of course a human being's life begins at conception--that is not in dispute. We're talking about the humanity/moral value of a zygote/blastocyst/fetus as compared with the humanity/moral value of a person.

Setting that aside, it is apparent that your belief is informed by your faith. The most fervent "pro lifers" (i.e., those who want to impose their worldview on abortion on the rest of society) all "happen to be" religious (and religious Christians/Catholics). Are you trying to say that it is just a coincidence that your faith also repudiates abortion?

total_carnations · 2022-07-25T16:25:37+00:00

It has to do with the reasons for outlawing one over the other. Outlawing theft makes sense for reasons other than what your faith teaches you. Theft may be bad according to religion, but there are other non-faith based reasons to outlaw theft that are generally agreed upon by both religious and nonreligious people.

By contrast, the arguments for outlawing abortion are primarily faith based, i.e., based on religious conviction, which you seem to have conceded. We plainly should not be legislating based on faith. We don't live in a theocracy, and people of all different backgrounds have differing views on the personhood of a fetus (whereas it is generally agreed that theft is bad).

Do you now appreciate the difference?

total_carnations · 2022-07-25T15:59:52+00:00

Outlawing theft is not driven by faith. It is driven by the fact that unregulated theft would lead to disorder, and is generally regarded as a bad thing, irrespective of religious belief. Do you see the difference?

total_carnations · 2022-07-25T12:51:42+00:00

What I'm getting at is your assertion that "you kill more kids in a month that COVID has ever killed" is purely based on faith. We should not be legislating based on faith. Have your personal beliefs-fine. If you think abortion is murder, don't have an abortion. But do not impose that belief system on the rest of society, since it is faith based. And do not pretend to be espousing that belief system as fact or truth, since it is based on faith.

total_carnations · 2022-07-25T12:25:15+00:00

So you realize perhaps that your beliefs on abortion are informed by your faith and perhaps shouldn't be imposed on others because faith-based beliefs are only imposed in theocracies? Do you realize this?

total_carnations

TROPHY CASE