This is the correct answer. Remy would skewer him from ass to mouth and then roast him on a spit (after seasoning him, of course). I’m sure he’d be delicious.

I’ve always found it absurd that presidents possess the authority to grant pardons. It trivializes our judicial system and undermines its integrity. This power should not be vested in the presidency.

No, not having any money to buy food and pay rent is a real problem, no matter what your mental state is or how you choose to think about it, much less anybody else.

One major difference: bankruptcy is real.

He is indeed poor. I don’t feel bad for him though.

You can’t rely on someone who is suffering to make a rational decision about weighing a very permanent choice with the chances of maybe someday getting better.

That’s just not true. People dealing with chronic pain can absolutely make informed decisions about their own healthcare, including voluntary euthanasia. Psychiatric and neurological illnesses could potentially impair a person’s judgment enough to bar them from making the choice themselves, but this notion that anyone who is “suffering” can’t be relied upon to make a rational decision because they’re somehow too biased by their own pain is pure idiocy.

No one should be proud of a demographic quality like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. You should be proud of accomplishments .

Wah, wah, waaaaaaaaaah….

That would depend on the person I’m talking to. Not everyone is well-suited for it. Generally, I recommend people find jobs that they enjoy doing most of the time.

Wow. Way to give polygamists a bad name, dude. Can’t let the monogamists have their slice of happiness, huh?

Pathetic. I’m glad you’re in the extreme minority, what a horrendous opinion you have.

While I obviously do think such platforms should take measures to curb abuse like this, I am also wary of penalizing them for a phenomenon they don’t cause and can’t really control. The sad fact is that sex traffickers are always going to take advantage of platforms like this, no matter how well-meaning said platforms are, and holding them accountable for preventing it risks making said ventures impossible as business ventures. There needs to be a reasonable standard for what we expect from these companies in terms of safeguards against this kind of abuse.

Even if so, it’s still good news.

Edit: People downvoting this post? Terrorist shills. It’s such a shame the pro-Palestinian movement is polluted with you asshats. Anyone who supports Hamas or Hezbollah has their priorities confused.

Considering most of the people involved in said industry probably voted for Trump, I decidedly don’t care. Face, meet leopards.

Unsurprising, considering we’ve been cooking things in literal dirt pits for millennia.

No. Most of Reddit’s population has proven they don’t care about changes that much more directly affect their user experience. I can’t see a significant portion of them caring about who owns the platform if they don’t care about that.

Therapist here. This is correct. While almost any activity can be addicting, OP isn’t describing an addiction, which would involve distress in the absence of a particular activity, even when other activities were engaged in. What OP is describing is much more like the apathy/lethargy we see in depressed people, which often results in persistent engagement with easy distractions.

I think it’s a bit ironic that Wikipedia hasn’t succumbed to the modern era of misinformation the way other information sources have, particularly given the warnings about it that have been given in the past. Not saying those warnings aren’t warranted, just that the way things have played out is counter to said expectations.

Honestly, I think it’s high time we ditch old marriage laws in favor of much more individualized marriage contracts that are settled in civil court if they’re dissolved. Modern marriages are much more complex than traditional ones and our antiquated laws don’t deal with them well. We’d have to update laws/policies about hospital visiting, medical decisions, inheritance, etc, as well, but I think it would be worth it.

In the context of the comment chain, you’re saying that a person who willfully violates a monogamous marriage vow should still be able to claim alimony in the event of a divorce, simply because they informed their spouse they were doing it?

Fuck that. What the hell are you thinking? Please tell me this isn’t what you mean.

Forgot to pick up the magic mirror before leaving the brigand leader’s office, didn’t you?