Can’t be an insult if you keep proving it to be true.

While it’s clear that you’re just a troll, the reply stands as the refutation of the poison you’re trying to inject.

Oh look, it’s the dimwit again, now you can’t tell the difference between a thought exercise and whataboutism? I’m surprised you’re even able to type.

Let me fill in that gap for you: a thought exercise is when you change a scenario so that the core idea can be explored under different circumstances, to see if it still holds up. It’s a way of deepening our understanding.

Whataboutism is when you point to wrongdoing by someone else to make the current accusation seem invalid.

If you can’t tell the two apart, shut up. If you can tell the two apart and you’re trying to subvert conversations with malicious intents, then we’re here to call you out, bot.

You’re a fucking moron. Like, an actual, genuine, idiot.

There’s two lessons here for you. First one is don’t talk about things you know nothing about, if you need a memorable phrase for it to stick in your head, here’s one: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.

The second lesson is that you’re solely responsible for your own education. If you’re as ignorant as a rock, that’s on you. Stop dragging the rest of humanity down, start using that brain in useful ways or do the rest of us a favor and shut the fuck up, you’re a burden.

Now as for the specific context here, on if banning specific journalists from the White House is a first amendment violation: most definitely yes in this case.

The first aspect to it is what’s known as the principle of “Viewpoint Discrimination”. This is very well established by the Supreme Court: when the government suppresses or punishes a message just because it disagrees with the speaker’s point of view, it crosses the line into viewpoint discrimination.

Extending this to the White House, from the moment you have a “public” event with an accreditation process, and you then proceed to ban access because of the “unfavourable coverage” (and this is a direct quote), this is clear cut viewpoint discrimination.

The second aspect is the argument that White House press conferences are akin to designated public forums. While the President is not legally required to hold press conferences or call on specific reporters, if a public forum is established for the press corps, the administration cannot selectively expel certain journalists as a tool for censorship or intimidation.

The third aspect is existing case law and past rulings:

Sherrill v. Knight (1977): The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the White House cannot deny press credentials arbitrarily. It established that the White House must have clear, published, and consistent standards for granting or denying access, and must provide due process.

CNN v. Trump (2018): When the White House revoked Jim Acosta’s “hard pass” following a… rough press conference, CNN sued. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order forcing the administration to restore his access, citing Fifth Amendment due process violations. Unfortunately the judge pussied out of also explicitly flagging First Amendment free speech rights on that one, but The White House folded and reinstated the credentials.

Ultimately, the most important aspect here is that this is blatantly unacceptable behaviour. If you do feel it is justified, apply a litmus test: would it still be acceptable if it was done by [insert someone you hate here]. For example, would it have been acceptable for Biden to ban a Fox reporter because of bad coverage?

The final conclusion is that this is not even something that the courts should have to rule on: people should be out in the streets shouting for their freedom and against the massive assault they’re under. Rights are something that need to be fought over, as they’re never granted freely, and relying on the Courts alone to uphold them will fail.

Word of the goddamn century. Something went very wrong when we entered this millennium

Damn, all the conspiracy comes from some dude misunderstanding “staged rockets to the moon”.

10$ on 21 nuggets isn’t a victory, it’s cutting your losses.

The specific type of bird represented in the picture is different, in that it does have live birth, so the joke works.

But it would still work regardless, because a joke doesn’t have to be scientifically accurate - it can play off the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so a “big bird with little birds inside it” can still be a mother instead of the logical explanation that it’s a predator, and this unexpected shift in view point (ruthless predator who just ate a bunch of babies, to the loving aspect of motherhood) is what makes it funny.

We’re overanalyzing this…

Yes.

It was for the best. Neither man nor beast should ever see the things poor Raggot saw…

This reminds me of one of the OG memes.

“In retrospect, lighting the match was my big mistake. But I was only trying to retrieve the gerbil,” Tomaszewski told bemused doctors in the Severe Burns Unit of Salt Lake City Hospital.

Tomaszewski, and his homosexual partner Andrew “Kiki” Farnum, had been admitted for emergency treatment after a felching session had gone seriously wrong. “I pushed a cardboard tube up his rectum and slipped Raggot, our gerbil, in,” he explained. “As usual, Kiki shouted out ‘Armageddon,’ my cue that he’d had enough. I tried to retrieve Raggot but he wouldn’t come out again, so I peered into the tube and struck a match, thinking the light might attract him.”

At a hushed press conference, a hospital spokesman described what happened next. “The match ignited a pocket of intestinal gas and a flame shot out the tube, igniting Mr. Tomaszewski’s hair and severely burning his face. It also set fire to the gerbil’s fur and whiskers which in turn ignited a larger pocket of gas further up the intestine, propelling the rodent out like a cannonball.”

Tomaszewski suffered second degree burns and a broken nose from the impact of the gerbil, while Farnum suffered first and second degree burns to his anus and lower intestinal tract

Valid points, and I agree that the “packaging” of vices into this format of “7 deadly sins” is traceable to early Christian origins.

You’ve also conceded that this format is clearly rooted on the earlier Hellenistic vice/virtue framework, so I’ll call the 7 deadly sins a “dark age one pager”, meant for monks and other people of simpler minds.

Excellent site for backing up my claim, thanks you.

Consumer spending, as measured by Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis], accounts for 68% of the GDP.

Top 3 items:

1. Housing (33.4% of budget): rent, mortgage interests, property taxes, water, electricity, internet, appliances, furniture.

2. Transportation (17.0%), heavily influenced by commuting habits: cars, fuel.

3. Food (12.9% of budget), includes groceries and food away from home (restaurants)

4. Insurance, Pensions, & Healthcare (20.4% combined)

5. “Discretionary”, everything else: clothing, entertainment, education (!), …

That’s a rather interesting breakdown, and a few items surprised me a lot. In any case, and more to the point I was replying, the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey gives this breakdown:

• The Top 20% (Highest Income Quintile): Accounts for roughly 35% to 38% of total consumption.

• The Middle 60% (Middle Class): Accounts for roughly 53% of spendingg

• The Bottom 20% (Lowest Income Quintile): Accounts for roughly 9% of spending.

It seems like this survey, since it’s based on questionnaires, tends to underreport luxury goods, so in reality it might be skewed more towards the top 20% than what’s presented there.

Even if that’s the case, surely it’s nowhere near the point of “not being profitable to sell to normal people”, as was said.

I think it’s been explained, but to reiterate, while humans aren’t fast, we’re very good at walking/trotting for extended periods of time - both because we have sweat glands that many animals lack, but also because bipedal locomotion is more efficient over a long distance.

Our earlier ancestors would set out after a herbivore, say an aurochs (the bigger the better), during the hottest part of the day, and cause it to flee. When it stopped to cool, they’d jog up after it and caused it to run away again, until it got so hot that it collapsed from heatstroke.

We’re having steak, boys!

They can be. The cabin crew will communicate to the flight crew when the interior is ready, they won’t takeoff without it, and someone refusing to sit down or buckle up definitely counts as not ready.

If a passenger gets up and causes a disturbance later, that would also get communicated to the flight crew and, shot of the plane having started its takeoff roll, there’s a good chance everyone is going back to the gate to remove this person.

That’s just ridiculous, unless you’re including stuff like stock, real estate or other investments as “purchases”.

There’s only so much bread and milk and books and sofas and cars that a wealthy household needs to purchase, and sure they will outspent other households in terms of cost per item, but not nearly enough to offset the sheer difference in volume.

Tldr, bullshit.