Jesus. What happened to poor man’s peppermint schnapps?

He’s not. It’s a suicide shifter.

That’s true, but also that “you can’t be a race car driver” is waaay too far. The way this is presented, the kid didn’t even say they wanted to be a pro driver, just compete in a different class. So crushing a dream totally is a big jump. At that age, girls tend to compete in a lot of traditionally guy sports,…

Aaaand that is a different thing than being told “women don’t play sports” (not that it’s more true, I don’t know anything about the science of prepubescent female development, but tend to doubt flag football would have any real impact). And ten is different than seven. I’m not saying it didn’t happen at all, and I’m…

Honestly, everything is a little too neat in this story- all my BS detectors are buzzing. From telling a seven year old this (it doesn’t make sense at 7, kids are all still on astronaut and racer and princess, reality hasn’t even started to be a consideration), to nobody to refute the statement, to the track doing the…

They were retreating, and that may have been a reason to start ending the conflict... but that’s a political question. At that time, these were armed, uniformed soldiers of a belligerent nation, who, unlike thousands of their comrades had NOT surrendered. Was what happened to them terrible? Yes. Was it a fair fight?…

It’s ugly, but war is. Is depth charging a submarine crewed by drafted sailors a war crime? The guys on the highway had a hell of a lot better chance to escape.

Apparently you weren’t paying attention in history class. First- these were intact, armed military units who had refused to surrender. There isn’t one part of any military convention that says they weren’t legitimate targets. Second- historically, the most effective method of establishing peace was to make it clear…

Dude, I’m real glad you’ve had two weeks in high school debate. But calm down. You’ve both incorrectly understood my point, and, really, the definition of fallacy. My assumption is that both parties are trying to do the thing that benefits them most. And go ahead, disprove that being a valid assumption. I don’t assume…

Yes. A lot.

Alcohol is toxic for your body. Done. And there is absolutely no legal limit to how much you can drink (nor you can be served, as long as you act sober). Since nutritional information posting is an encouragement not to purchase a product (nice strawman btw), rather than a ban, it isn’t relevant. And STDS aren’t the…

I’d love for that law to be passed. Since it wont, ever, of course we should just keep on piling up more laws that restrict people from doing things that are risky instead, right? Bring back prohibition, first off. Of course you’re totally on board with banning soda, and fast food as well, right- or really anything…

So? That’s their choice. Everybody does stupid things that endanger themselves. Where do you draw the line? Let me put it this way. Do you have a job? I guarantee you’ve violated an OSHA guideline today- everybody does. I think you should therefore get a $300 ticket. Does it maybe seem a little overboard now? I’m all…

You are literally the last person I expected to see miss a joke like this

Sure, if you fail to observe that the motivations are the exact opposite in that comparison- ie a prosecutor is basically paid to take people to trial, and it’s highly unlikely that anyone at GM wants a trial at all. But otherwise, yeah, totally akin.

It’s not about naivete, it’s the fact that companies are trying to get out of bad spots with the least damage. Whether they’re right or wrong, it’s very rare for a trial to be a company’s best option. Settling is almost always the cheaper and easier option for them- again, whether or not they’re in the wrong. If a…

Please tell me the worst things about the Triple. I’m saving for an ST R right now, but I am trying to get rid of the rose-colored glasses

What? That’s like the opposite of true.