Kind of like how we live in a world where women can now lead their countries as elected presidents, for example, but there is still a large wage gap between genders in most work sectors? I mean, patriarchy, bro. S'a thing.
The same applies to black minorities.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
OKC's ownership group has been very iffy even for NBA standards. They left Seattle when a better offer came along and took the team to OKC, they let Harden go over relatively little money just after they had finally made the Finals... do you think if KD's ankle injuries of two seasons ago had gotten worse instead of better they'd have hesitated giving him up too? I'm sceptical on it.
My understanding is that the ownership group left after the local government declined assisting in the construction of a new complex for the second time.
Looking at the team without Harden, is it any worse? Of course not. Harden went to the Rockets and has done little to lead them to contention status. Westbrook and Durant were the pieces to build around, not Harden.
This isn't a matter of OKC failing to produce money. There's no mention of that. No one's saying that OKC short-changed Durant or low-balled him. That'd be a good reason to depart.
He left to pursue a championship with the team that made his team look foolish and incompetent. That beat him. And that's just not the sort of defeatism I'd expect from a true superstar.
OKC had a legitimate shot of knocking out GSW next year if Durant stuck around. He did not. And I don't see any way he shakes that reputation-hit.
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
Ultimately, the concept of life after death is either not true, or it exists in such a manner that it is incapable of being experienced or proven- at which point it bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to us.
You are familiar with the placebo effect, I presume. What is or is not true is largely irrelevant if, by virtue of belief alone, there is a measurable reaction.
I get what you're trying to communicate, and yet I disagree with many of the blanket statements you have made to date regarding organized or disorganized religions.
And I think there is a certain danger in the blanket dismissal of what is considered plausible or implausible, at any time. You may find Chuck Klosterman's new book -- But What If We're Wrong? -- interesting.
Everything is implausible until it is done. Living in Dayton, I am constantly reminded of advances by the Wright Brothers and Charles Kettering, who dared -- simply dared, sir! -- to make the implausible a reality.
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
When someone asks "Do you believe in X?" the answer is never "Yes." or "No."
Actually, that is the answer to the question. It is a question I ask all the time in depositions, at hearings, in trials, of my clients, etc. It is a question that my clients must answer, and I tell them, very clearly: "if it is a question that can be answered "yes" or "no," then answer "yes" or "no."" If I want an explanation, I'll ask for it.
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
Let's talk about communication, then.
You said:
When someone asks "Do you believe in X?" the answer is never "Yes." or "No."
I said:
Actually, that is the answer to the question.
What I should have said was:
Actually, "yes" or "no" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question, and are the only responsive answers requested by the inquiry.
This isn't a point of law or procedure. This is what the interrogatory is requesting. We're presuming, and perhaps correctly, that the original poster wanted reasons for the answer.
So, it is a simple question. We're making it complex, which was the point I was arguing.
And I certainly wasn't lamenting an actual discussion of contrary opinion. I was lamenting that the discussion had jumped into the realm of browbeating and belittling, which is, as you say, self-evident.
To be clear, were the stated premise "yes! paranormal shit exists!", my response would be, succinctly, that I lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of that statement, and therefore deny it.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
Topic Change edit: Reports are coming out the Wade will sign with the Bulls. While I know he is not the player he once was I find him leaving the Heat a team he has played on for 3 championships and 13 years rather shocking.
Wade is pissed because the Heat aren't paying him like the Lakers paid Kobe. Wade deserves to be the highest paid player on his team, yet has consistently agreed to lesser terms in order to field a contender. Now that the team appears to be struggling, he wants what he deserves -- or what has been deferred. So, he's pissed that the Heat are paying him less than what other teams will.
The Bulls deserve what they pay for: they got rid of one perennially-injured PG for another.
@Tyche said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
A long time ago, sometime before the birth of Taylor Swift, I lived in a small apartment on the second floor.
So, your name is Luca?
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
For the Heat they lose they face of their franchise but they also made a sound if completely cold hearted business decision.
Appearing cold and heartless is not the way to attract good free agents. I expect that Miami will once again not be relevant until they draft someone who has the same star potential as a young D.Wade.
Bring copies of your checks, if you have them, showing that the amounts were deposited into someone's account. Or, if not yet deposited, evidence that you mailed the checks out or delivered them to your landlord.
In most jurisdictions, a landlord cannot proceed to evict you -- that is, get restitution of the premises -- where they have accepted payments for rent. You may still owe the landlord money, but acceptance of money after the filing of a complaint or statutory notice obviates the landlord's right to restitution of the premises.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
There's still... issues with that. It's one of those pieces of bad advice that people apply with a broad brush, even to folks like me who live with permanent injuries. (As in, no, when certain things hurt, stopping is the only option that won't prevent further damage, crazy people.)
Oh, I don't mean to apply it to anyone but myself.
I have every right to be as stupid as I want when it comes to my body. Like @Arkandel continuing to do deadlifts.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
Time for that random road tour of Pennsylvania, I guess.
You don't take a random road tour of Pennsylvania; all such journeys are like walking across the River Styx, and thus always purposeful.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
PA has nothing * * *.
Full stop, right there.
Any state that has to name its villages, towns, and cities with sexual terminology has nothing to truly offer.
I'm hoping that she ends up better than she's been in the trailers, especially because Harley was originally created and written so smartly in Batman: TAS.
I wouldn't go so far to say that Harley was ever written smartly, but she's one of the more interesting creations out of B:TAS. And, yes, B:TAS made Batman better.
But she's definitely been made worse. In some of the comics, she has had arcs (here and there; they can be rare) with real, actual depth. Some of the justifications for her Suicide Squad costumes... 'We want to show that she's owning her sexuality.' I mean, OK. I kind of get that? But at the same time... Not many women (if any) are gonna go to the theater and think 'girl power' with those outfits. They're going to sigh about yet more fanservice.
If she's been made worse, that's another issue. I'm merely disputing that she was smartly written in B:TAS, or was calculated to be so. It's really not until the second and third seasons that Harley gets out on her own, and, even then, her relationship with Mr. J is less about abuse and more from sheer crazy.
So UNLIKELY to find it here. Won't say impossible.
Rite-Aid sometimes carries it.
@Apu said in Good or New Movies Review:
Rotten Tomatoes seems to be biased against most superhero movies unless they're obvious money winners, like the Marvel flicks. Anything else made by anyone not Marvel? They'll hate it!
Except that the Marvel movies were decent productions that did one of two things: (1) focused on the characters involved so you could feel connected to them; or (2) toss many of those developed characters into a single plot that barely held together, but made for exceptional acting in small snippets.
Warner Bros. does not seem to have quite understood this in their milking of DC's superior material. Even after Nolan's non-pareil trilogy, they still haven't quite figured out what makes superhero stories compelling. And that's quite a shame.
@ThatGuyThere said in Good or New Movies Review:
The reason comic fans hate the messed up Waller, she is one of the few people to win a metaphorical stare down Batman.
And Ra's al Ghul is immortal, and not in the sense that new ones get appointed.
And Mr. Freeze is this:
Not this:
Things change. Comic book fans need to lighten the fuck up.
@ThatOneDude said in RL Anger:
Would it have been the "one" thing that now banned that dog from the store based on this perceived unspoken rule?
I regularly go out to eat. I'm allergic to legumes, nuts, and some other things that will kill me if ingested. Is it reasonable for me to demand that all such products are removed from the store and my presence? Is it reasonable for me to demand that all such products are removed from grocery stores at which I frequent?
Going out in public logically requires a person to be prepared to deal with their allergies, if they have them. If I were management, I would tell that one customer to deal with it. Having a dog-friendly store is likely more important to business than the one customer that has a complaint about that policy.
What gives someone the right to have a dog that isn't a service dog with them everywhere?
Nothing.
What of the people with allergies ... They don't matter?
No more than any other customer, I presume.
I'm more curious about this unspoken rule part because I'm sure if the dog did something like bit a child there would most likely be no mention of said rule from the store right?
I guess not? That sounds like an issue between management and their CG / Premises Liability insurance carrier and/or agent.
