plzprettypuss2
plzprettypuss2
plzprettypuss2

I'm torn. On one hand, he did a horrible, terrible thing. On the other hand, I tend to dislike the punitive prison system in America, but I also get that child molestation is certainly deserving of prison. I wish a decent portion of his winnings could be given to the victim. It just feels UNFAIR that he should win

I've never read Stephen Glass. The E network used to run a series called "Curse of the Lottery" that profiled a lot of the negative cases. Many of the cases were also tracked by Forbes and other newspapers. I'm not sure where you are coming up with your information.

He's said some pretty terrible stuff in the past. I lost my taste after he did a long-winded defense of his "right" to use the term "Mong" (short for Mongloid). I've worked with mentally challenged people in the past, and frankly, no person who will defend that word is decent in my mind.

It's a mixed bag. A lot of winners just go spend crazy and burn through the money. A lot of them are good-hearted people who can't turn down the relatives and strangers (yes, strangers) who will start approaching you for money after you win. Are there lottery winners that get long-term happiness out of it? Sure. But I

It's times like these I really wish I could like Ricky Gervais, as he does have some genuinely likable moments.

Between this and John Oliver's expert take on why the lottery is BS from a little while back, I am certainly starting to believe that the universe is finally trying to batter home the "don't play the lottery" message. The time has finally come!

Well my understanding is that a lot of lottery winners actually come to regret winning and this stuff often ends badly. So maybe God is building him up just to take it all away later, kind of like what the British tabloids love to do? If money truly is the root of all evil, we may still hold out hope.

Which part of this article is supposed to induce the most depression?

I presume this had absolutely NOTHING to do with the brand's unfortunate strong of lawsuits that sorta revealed that they aren't fans of racial minorities, Muslims, or the disabled, right?

It's called "convert's zeal." And it's a real thing. The good news is that it tends to cool off over time. The bad news is that there are always new converts to bother you.

To me, "cultural appropriation" happens when somebody takes from a culture without context. The Harajuku Girls, as I understand them, were some kind of homage to stylized Japanese teen girl culture, particularly the way they dress. Which really isn't that bad. However, I remember Margaret Cho pointing out that they

What it sounds like to me was that Dunham wrote the passage trying to make it as general as possible to avoid identifying anybody, but by dumb chance she happened to choose a name that actually belonged to somebody who might/might not be the man in question, so they are changing it to make sure that he can't be linked

Thank you for the response. I agree with you - I don't agree with every conclusion people have reached, but I appreciate that people invest such time and energy into trying to figure out an answer that can provide some clarity and/or comfort. I don't pretend to have any answers, but I appreciate the thought people put

Ryan, I can appreciate your clarification.

But my question wasn't about whether you believe is "skyfaeries." My question was about whether your contention that such a God would not be worthy of your worship invariably leads to atheism. And the answer is that is does not. I was pointing out that your atheism seems nearly totally founded upon the Judeo-Christian

Is God deserving of your worship? How should I know? You seem to have already made up your mind. But you misunderstand what it means to say "the nature of God." To dispute the nature of something, you must first concede that it exists. Thus, when two people argue over the nature of God, both of them must first concede

(this is my burner account, so I apologize):