I understand that if they’re that bad you shouldn’t keep eating but no, Anon only ate 7 wings. This drum vs flat nonsense is just a corporate ploy to take the smallest piece of chicken and give you even less.
I've never seen a place that didn't count each wing section as one piece. I do get eating them even if they were bad though. If it's not bad enough to go and demand my money back, I'm still making sure the money didn't go to waste.
I understand that if they’re that bad you shouldn’t keep eating but no, Anon only ate 7 wings. This drum vs flat nonsense is just a corporate ploy to take the smallest piece of chicken and give you even less.
I've never seen a place that didn't count each wing section as one piece. I do get eating them even if they were bad though. If it's not bad enough to go and demand my money back, I'm still making sure the money didn't go to waste.
This is real. Why couldn't they just feature this one? Anyway, if you're looking for something different, this is it. The 2024 home in Occidental, CA is also Fire & Earthquake resistant, plus virtually noise-free. It has 2bds, 3ba, 3,068sqft, Reduced $50k to $1.699m. You have to see the main bath. I was completely fooled, b/c I didn't realize that they messed with the photos, at first.
Custom-made map gate.
The lanterns on the walls are held by these weird looking hands.
Very open concept.
They call this a gourmet kitchen, but it's so small. The counter isn't even big enough for seating.
The medallion in the floor in front of the kitchen.
This is the primary bedroom.
I don't like this trend of no doors on closets. I don't want to look at clothes and shoes, etc.
Apparently, there's room for a seating area.
The main bath. I guess it's supposed to look like a real archaeological dig? B/c the head looks funny. The tail looks like corn on the cob.
Interesting bath.
The 2nd bd. was a child's room.
I like the wall murals.
The 2nd bath is a shower room.
There's this large room off the garage, that I thought was a rec room.
But, it's got an exposed toilet and a utility sink for the laundry.
I thought that this small room off the big room was for the laundry.
Then, back here, there's the power plant stuff. Creepy. I have an irrational fear of stuff like this.
More stuff outside.
I don't know what this is. Some sort of an outdoor room.
Behind the house there's a patio and what looks like a pond and a sculpture.
little girl in the checkout line was freaking the FUCK out reaching for a shelf and screaming "GIMMEEEE GIMMEEEEE" at the top of her lungs and the mom kept saying "no " and I look at the shelf expecting there to be candy or something and it was full of batteries
But was she fixated on the batteries for their own sake, or does she have a toy at home that's a mere 4 D-cells away from making enough noise and flashing lights to keep mom awake for the nexy week?
Um, no? To all of this? If someone breaks into your house and tries to run at you(or any direction that could be interpreted as such in the moment) despite you pointing your gun at them and yelling "don't move!", then it's ok to fire and that has nothing to do with burglary, because anyone who charges someone with a gun can be reasonably assumed to have intentions alot worse than stealing a tv. If they're clearly no threat, like if you somehow know for a fact that they're not dangerous like these scenarios all imply, it's murder. Life>property, and one guy who, in this scenario, you know doesn't intend to harm you is not a mass of rioters trying to break into your property for who-knows-what and necessitating you become a Roof Korean.
Except no homeowner should be under the obligation to have to decide in a split-second whether the person in my home in the dead of night is willing to kill or not.
If they have entered my home without my consent, I get to assume that they have the worst intentions, or else a one-second-late decision could be fatal to me or my family.
If they immediately turn tail and run, with no way for it to be towards anyone else in the home, do you get to assume that not shooting them in the back could be fatal? I'm not trying to argue that ambiguous situations should have the benefit of the doubt fall on the criminal and not the victim, I'm trying to argue that people don't have an innate authority to kill all trespassers, which I know sounds insane and doesn't seem to be what you're saying but that a ridiculous amount of people have overtly said to me that they have.
If you give an intruder time to turn and flee, you've already delayed long enough for them to lunge and stab or point and shoot. Prevarication is suicide in intimate-range encounters with any person(s) already displaying a blatant disregard for the sanctity of your home.
Fundamentally, the criminal transgressiveness threshold separating the act of breaking into a (potentially occupied) home and not doing that is very, very wide; a person who has resolved himself to invade another's home is already committed to disregarding both law and morality, and the jump from there to assaulting/killing/raping that home's occupants is a relatively small one. A home invader who has the intent to do harm is likely to already be primed to attack the moment they spot another living soul, so the potential cost of trying to take the merciful route (on the off chance that they're just a desperate, starving Jean Valjean) is simply far too high to warrant anything but an immediate lethal-force response on sight.
Now, if you only notice a home invader after they've grabbed something and are sprinting out your door and across the lawn, then yes, shooting them in the back is bad form. But that's not really the situation that people are discussing here.
I'm not talking about situations where there's any doubt as to what the invader is doing. I'm talking explicitly about situations where you have no reason to believe they're a threat to you or anyone else in the home, which I fully admit are rare, but I'm doing that because of the sheer volume of people who have been saying "you should shoot anyone illegally on your property regardless of any context" on this and a couple other similar posts. If there is ambiguity, the onus is on the homeowner to protect themselves and their family, not to protect the invader. I'm only talking about situations where there is no reasonable way that they could be classed as a threat, because there really are some people here who need to be told that shooting someone who you know for a fact isn't a threat to anyone is wrong.
Marc. This is a bad take. If somebody is coming into your home the intent doesn't matter anymore. Because they've already forfeited any intent to stay alive at that point. Because whatever they are there for is important enough for them to die for.
Doesn't matter whether that's killing and raping you and your family. Doesn't matter whether that's stealing your belongings. It doesn't matter if it's the thrill of the theft. The moment you decide to impede on another person's Dominion you have already forfeited your right to live if you have done so against their consent. Especially in the dead of night. There is no "safe legal and rare" situation here. A person entering your domain by breaking into your home is forfeiting any and all safety they could potentially experience. Especially if the person firing the shots has a family. And even if they don't. You are a threat by your mere existence in my home against my will.
Doesn't matter whether that's stealing your belongings.
It very much does, because property does not outweigh life. It's life, liberty and property in that order, both because they're inherently more important going upwards but because each subsequent one is predicated on the presence of the previous. If, in a hypothetical situation, an intruder is running away with the jewels from your safe, you do not have the moral, ethical or legal right to shoot him. That is disproportionate force, which I shouldn't have to say in the context of "gun someone down for stealing." If you can incapacitate him with non-lethal force in some way, you have every right to do so, but his life is worth more than your money. If it's not then there's such a thing as property worth more than lives, and there is no such thing. And just to be pre-emptive, some situation like "this guy's stealing medicine and there's a bunch of sick kids about to die!" doesn't count, as that's still the life of a criminal against the lives of his victims.
You are a threat by your mere existence in my home against my will.
I disagree with the normal principle behind this. I disagree with the fact that you just said that even in a hypothetical situation where nobody was in danger you still have the right to kill the intruder. You took my situation where there is no threat, said lethal force was justified in a no-threat situation, then said this. That's two different things being treated as one.
honestly a pity that Luke & Leia being siblings was so tacked on to the original trilogy bcos i think retroactively Leia being Anakin's daughter really beefs up some aspects of A New Hope, namely:
taking the prequels into account, the fact that Anakin fell to the dark side bcos he was trying to protect Padme and their unborn child and then his first on screen atrocity in the OT being unknowingly torturing his own daughter has a delicious irony to it. especially given extent to which Leia and Padme are parallel characters. love that.
the fact that Vader correctly predicts that Tarkin's plan to get the location of the rebel base out of Leia won't work. he's presumably there like 'well she'll just lie. that's what I'd do' and he's right bcos Leia does think the same way as him.
Relatedly another retroactively beefed up moment in ANH is when they're in the trash compactor and Luke & Leia start yelling at Han with the exact same intonation. Love that.
The dumbest conservative you know is simultaneously posting about Muslims invading western countries
while also gleefully celebrating the bombing of Muslim countries by the USIsraeli war machine, thus creating more Muslim refugees in non Muslim countries
Jaime's use of the phrase "burn them all" was his recounting the final words of the Mad King, explaining why Jaime betrayed his oath as Kingsguard and killed the Mad King
It was to express that the title Mad King was accurate
And that Jaime was right to disobey his king's orders and slay his king
Cons can't even decide if they're the good guys, or the bad guys using "good" guy's description of the bad guys
That's the end stage of protagonist syndrome: you gleefully vice signal, but at the same time you're so deep in your god complex that you think your vices are righteous and heroic.
yousharknotpass
2087
gracieabrams
blakekathryn
