Comments

So wear an ultra-short skirt instead- and no panties. Friction has been defeated

hey you wrote that yet or just gave up?

Or, possibly, a 1% chance that it's not 0.0

(same guest) and much like hot years, the frequency of hail events increases due to climate change: www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/climate-change-and-natural-disasters/climate-change/hail.html

According to that link it was actually hail which is not unexpected in summer

Same argument for murdering an adult. However, society is against that. So, there are rules against doing it and punishments for breaking those rules.

For the "I wouldn't know or care" argument, the same goes for someone killing you in your sleep or with poison that puts,you to sleep before stopping your heart.

I'm not saying this is an easy or simple topic, but the pro abortion arguments so far have been bad ones.

Dw guest, you wouldn’t have to apologize if guest didn’t feel the need to re-write the bible on every comment thread

Lol this post made me laugh. You guys are great

(Shrek)ROARRR!!!

You know how christians are - if it's other people's belief it doesn't exist.
If it's their belief - how dare you question it.

(Whoa, those comments just suddenly appeared after posting that. Sorry for breaking up the existing reply chain! That was supposed to be a top-level comment, not a reply)

The "I" in that verse is Paul, telling Timothy how righteous people should behave. Doesn't really make it much better unless you speculate that he's actually making a veiled reference to a certain woman who really is out of line and that this counsel is in response to an extreme case (same with the "young widows are wicked seductresses, old widows are righteous" thing later on in that epistle), but at that point you're just inventing unknown historical context. Just wanted to clarify who "I" is in that verse, though.

Bullshit.

Look at the absurd $80,000 straw man he used!

I feel like I see this fairly often -- a person is hired to do something, then one day the boss shows up and says "hey, do you mind doing this too?". The person wants to be a good employee and agrees to take on the extra work (and obviously bosses never come and say "I will pay you extra if you do this"). Then the boss sees the person is reliable and next time there's more work they turn to the same person again. Then down the line you have employees who were hired to do one thing, but in the end are doing two, three jobs at the same time, but without a pay raise. And yes, that will make a person feel like they are being underpaid and taken advantage of, and it will definitely lead to them not doing as good of a job, and I think that's reasonable. If a company wants to fill two or three positions, they should hire two or three people, not dump a bunch of extra work on some employee who ends up working on the edge of burnout for minimum wage, which is how it is for many employees.

Different guest here, but wanted to say that the contract you guest_ speak of isn't always upheld by the employer, putting the employee in a difficult situation. At my last job, for example, I was hired to do one role, but when I started the job it turned out I was expected to actually do two roles simultaneously. This was not mentioned in the interview or in the contract itself. It caused me quite some stress because suddenly I was basically doing two jobs instead of one, but I was getting paid the same as everyone who was only doing one role. Since I applied for the job because I needed an income to pay rent and food I couldn't just quit either. I did eventually end up leaving that job, especially when I pointed out that I basically do two jobs but get paid the same as everyone who only does one, only to be told it's not in the budget. They just wanted someone (me) to work one of the extra roles for free, instead of hiring an extra person.

That would be illiterate life