Please compare your second sentence to the last sentence in my first paragraph. I already covered the fact that it’s a two-way street.

So good on you for pointing out what I already pointed out. You might consider stepping up your game, as well.

I think the fact that he hasn’t been honest with her is too big of a breach of trust. I also think it’s entirely rational to treat any gun that still has a firing pin or striker as being dangerous.

And rat poison can’t harm you unless it gets in your blood stream, but it’s still fucking dangerous. Safety measures typically aren’t required for things that are harmless. If she sees no benefit of having the guns in her home, all she’ll see is the danger, which is a perfectly reasonable outlook on her part on…

Can you please point me to the study that found 500,000 DGUs per year using CDC data? 

Because guns are dangerous. If you disagree with that, I assume you weren’t paying attention in your gun safety class. If she doesn’t want them around because she fears for her safety, I think that’s totally reasonable. If he doesn’t respect her views, then he doesn’t respect her. If she doesn’t respect his hobby,…

No, it isn’t. Two can play at that game!

If they value a gun, or any other object, over a person they care about, that’s shameful. Either that, or they don’t really care about that person.

Because what he values is shameful. Kind of like calling women “chicks.”

Jager Bombs are never the way to go.

I don’t know, you seem to be the poopypants in this situation.

The Big Bang Theory is the most popular show on television. Popular =/= good.

Sure, that’s the mature approach, but this isn’t the first time I’ve crossed paths with Prince Ruprecht. I’ve tried the mature approach—it didn’t work. He seems to exist just to antagonize people here and get into arguments and complain that no one passes his progressive purity test. In small doses, that’s okay, but…

And I respect your opinion, whether I agree with it or not, because at least you’ve demonstrated the honesty to admit your error.

That sounds like something Garth Marenghi would write.

You’ve moved the goalposts, but that doesn’t matter. You do understand that the sum total of “inconsequential” amounts of food thrown away by individuals is not inconsequential, right? Or are you as solipsistic as you seem to be?

By no good reason, do you mean the 870 million people per year that could be fed if food…

I don’t give a fuck about whether we agree or not—facts are on my side. Feel free to keep being a dickhead.

It would be a disaster to close the road for construction.

The effects of wasting food are not inconsequential.  

And that’s what makes it shitty—it’s a tiny, tiny effort. Even calling it an effort is giving it too much credit. Smell it, look at it. If it smells and looks edible, it almost certainly is. Seems like it’d be a lot more effort to buy or prepare something else. I think it largely comes down to “I’m not in the mood for…

I’m not criticizing anyone who makes an effort but occasionally has to throw food out. At least they made the effort. The problem is that so few people do make an effort.

If nothing else—compost! It sounds like your parents might not feel as bad about throwing food out if they were composting it—if it’s an option for…

Shipping cost for 2 4-packs ($21) to Seattle costs $27. So the proceeds on the $21 goes to the Stoneman Douglas Victim’s Fund, and $27 goes to Fedex, which refused to sever ties with the NRA.

I’d be more willing to take the hit if it was shipped via UPS or DHL.