Well that’s quite an odd way of wording it.
Space Moth
spacemoth2
“Why did they deserve to get expelled when they did nothing illegal?”
Well, you are the one who started this discussion about the narrative of this commercial, and are responding yet again to continue arguing - so I am unsure of the reason for your sarcasm / snark.
“Only for the professionally offended.”
Meaning you thought he had already come out back then?
People not thinking someone is straight is not the same thing as that someone coming out.
“Wow, there are so many ways to spend the hour you’ll get on Sunday, November 16, 2016, aren’t there?”
Were she to disappear, it would represent a claim that the drug either a) cures the condition or b) makes your intestines disappear (by giving that impression through the narrative). Since it does neither of those things, it would be false advertising. The character is still there because the woman still has the…
“There’s no reason the intestine costume should still be there after the woman takes the drug.”
“Winning an Oscar may have been a dream of hers, but not for that particular performance in that particular movie.”
It’s always funny when ignorant people who are so convinced they are right have to dismiss replies when they realize they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between paying a fee for a service and making a donation?
I’m an atheist, but it’s pretty funny to see you equate your ignorant comments on the subject to well thought out and planned chess moves.
Quote any bible passage you like, it won’t make collection-plate contributions payment for salvation or blessings.
Nothing you have quoted makes church contributions payment for salvation or blessings.
None of this negates my point. Church offerings are not payment for salvation or blessings (i.e., “invisible, intangible rewards”).
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with my point. Money that parishioners put into the collection plate is not payment for salvation or blessings (i.e., “invisible, intangible rewards”), as your comments imply. I never argued that churches don’t have money or assets.
The collection plate is for charitable offerings, not payments for salvation or blessings.
My feeling is one of puzzlement at your oddly hostile attitude on display here, all in response to a simple and perfectly reasonable question and a stated opinion that you agree is ok for me to hold.
Now playing
Well you could have, but that wouldn’t have answered the question - and would have been yet another rather odd response, coming off as quite juvenile to boot: