"Oh, did you not think I was listening to you? I listened, but you just didn't understand all the nuances of the issue, so here's a longer, more insufferable version of the thing I already said." —Probably What Greg Gutfeld Thinks

Goddamnit, I've been unknowingly saying a racial slur for over a decade. If "makrut" is the Thai name, why the hell do all the Thai cookbooks in English use the slur?

Why so shrill and strident? I think you could make your point more effectively if you used logic and reason instead of appeals to emotion. Plus, you'd look much nicer if you smiled a little. This is probably because you went to some liberal university where you majored in Women's Studies and minored in outrage. If…

"Fuck her, right? In the pussy?"

"If I want a life with Bradley Cooper, well, then...I'll just make one up."

Interestingly, this was also the logic behind the decision in the recent Hobby Lobby case.

Torpedo is fine, but ranking it above some of those others? Shenanigans.

So his point was mere nitpicking? He was, instead, saying, gently: "It wasn't 'most' of the time; I'd like to inform you, congenially, that 60/126 constitutes a plurality. The more you know!"

Cool. I guess that's why he's so aggressive and fucking condescending about it.

I'll actually go past the flippant here. Name a major sport where it's not a massive disadvantage to be down one player. Are you really contending that there was no significant offensive or defensive advantage levied upon Greece by Costa Rica playing for an hour with ten men?

If that's what you're arguing, then…

Oh, yeah, eh?

The central argument - namely, that one team played for 60 out of 126 minutes with 10 men and still managed to win on PKs - stands, despite your hair-splitting.

Real nerds vet their metaphors.

He shouldn't have. That doesn't stop Costa Rica's 60-minute 10-man play from being ridiculous.

Oh, well, gee. I guess if they only had to play sixty minutes with 10 men instead of sixty-seven, then mirrorball's argument is totally invalid.

Gimme a fucking break.

You're confusing cause and effect.

49 U.S. states disagree with your jurisdiction's laws. That's the problem.

Is your argument that every dollar put toward the TaTa Top (which, yes, is dumb, even if the reason behind its existence is both real and not dumb) would otherwise go toward feeding the poor?

(1) Your first point would be interesting, if larger breast sizes corresponded with higher fertility rates. They don't.

(2) If you don't understand the thrust of this paragraph - namely, using male-created social mores to justify treating the display of biologically parallel parts of women and men differently under…

So they are glorious, but must be hidden away or the woman is guilty of a crime?

w/r/t your last paragraph: I never accused you of being in favor of burlap sacks or called you a slut-shamer. That post was in response to a user named Lokimaru, who was saying that women needed to cover up to protect themselves. Look for yourself.