You are using subpar metals, brother. And the intricacy of their carvings will be delicate, nearly flat, so as not to disrupt functionality.

My mom drove my BRZ to the store once since it was the last car in the driveway. She walked out into the parking lot after with my sister and was like “oh fuck, I just lost his new car”.

It was behind a small sedan, like a Corolla or something haha

Seriously. At least ask first!

Of course he was PPC lol

Or a fish! If there were, then people would be fish and sharks would not be.

It’s good to be orgranized and it ain’t no flex to not be BUT it’s the passion that really seal the deal here. It’s like how I don’t manage my cables simply because I like to be neat but more that I manage them because if they aren’t organized I cannot function at full capacity just knowing that things are a mess.

I’ve never looked at a number-on-top d4 and thought “ouchy if only there was an easier way”. Not once. Whether or not I agree with you, the fact that there is a noticeable difference to you, which crosses a particular threshold, is wild.

The alignment system really isn’t that complex or strict. Lawful means you’re someone who generally holds to personal principles and chaotic means you go where the wind blows. Good means you do what’s best for everyone and evil means you do what’s best for yourself.

Chaotic Good would be the hardest one to wrap ones head around. That would be someone who wants to help people but isn’t really sure how. They don’t have a strong oath like a paladin and they don’t know if they should be nice everyone or if they should maybe be a little quicker to fight against the obvious bad guys.

Ultimately though, the alignment is system is something pretty well explained in the DMG, from what I remember, but with D&D people just look at poorly informed memes and then complain about how rules don’t even function in the actual book. Their ignorance is not the fault of the source material.

Otherwise I generally agree with what you’re saying. I would like to add that you can also create depth with character growth. A simple character is a fantastic starting point if you actually develop them over the campaign.

Well that’s the thing, it wouldn’t be possible so the entire idea of “let us sane people come” is flawed from the start unless they truly believe that there should be a purity test and that they would pass it. Anyone who genuinely thinks that way should be immediately disqualified from immigrating based on their own idea of an ideological test.

“I’m different though and there should be actual, real laws to permit to do particular things!” is not the position of someone who considers their community at large to any particularly special degree. And to be clear I’m all for banning hate speech and stuff because that’s a specific banned behaviour and not a specific allowed behaviour, and we have evidence to show that it can be as harmful as any physically violent attack.

Don’t worry, there aren’t that many sane people in the US. A lot of them are under the impression that they’re sane because they take the “balanced” position, though, which is to say that they just choose whatever’s in between fascism and barely progressive policy while they call themselves intelligent.

Frankly I’m not sure I’d want a bunch of people who cannot take accountability and who have such main-character energy they think that they would be allowed in while “bad” people wouldn’t be. We have enough problems with similar mindsets here in Canada and I really don’t want more of that except now they’re making it even harder to get away from our useless, conservative, Liberal(capital L) party.

Not if you stayed, then it’s an investment. Money doesn’t just disappear when goes to poor people, they use it to buy things like food and stuff. It would only be a financial drain if you were sending that money back home.

The North American mind cannot comprehend the benefits of supporting the poor.

Ah ok cool cool. “Asking questions” is always a dicey game that needs incredibly clear intent these days.

I don’t have the background nevessary to answer your question, but if I understand it correctly you’re asking about when the eggs are created and, if they’re technically made before birth, does it then not count. I’m not sure any one definition would really help nail it down. It’s a question that can probably not be answered within a strict binary which I imagine is part of the point you were trying to make, that said strict binary isn’t something we should be wasting too much time trying to force in the first place.

If you’re trying to define being a woman as being a female by “asking questions” which, in this context, are stupid ones then sure. Unfortunately for that line of thinking it’s only possible if you’re aggressively ignorant so I’m hoping that I’m misunderstanding something.

At the end of the day, gender and sex are separate things which often councide in a certain way but do not need to. I won’t claim to understand that feeling as a cis dude but that’s just how it is. Bringing sex into the transgender talk is beyond pointless(except when it isn’t, but that’s not what people who talk about “biological females” are ever talking about).

The one where the first several hundred metres is just water.

I read it as “we are aware that these two ideologies are different and frankly they are both such absolute garbage that we don’t really care to distinguish them all that much.”

It’s to show that there is literacy and understanding of nuance there, but that at the end of the day it’s more of a “fun fact” when the centrists keep supporting the conservatives as their general default. Even when Liberals do nothing is about how that nothing is consistently helping the far-right get away with shit while aggressively discouraging progressive change.

Conservatives are nationalist morons who are trying to conserve and bring back a lot of the systems that let low-quality privileged people in their given society keep all the power. Liberals don’t have hating minorites as a policy goal but they also refuse to believe that doing nothing will not, in fact, make up for hundreds of years of systemic issues. Conservatives will try to fix capitalism by ethnic minorities and Liberals will try to fix by getting rid of rules which “might stifle economic expansion”. Neither of those ideologies are worth anything though they are different.

There’s also, I think, the weird fucky option were 75% sorta works because the 25% applies to choosing 50% and 50% applies to choosing 25% which means that as long as you don’t choose 0% you’re good?

BUT ALSO, none of the question says it’s talking about itself. It could just mean in general, so we can choose 25% on purpose and then glare at whoever made A and D the same.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod