In places where you wipe with a hand you generally are supposed to eat with the other hand (although in some you use the other hand as a bowl....) but realistically if you wash your hands, a hand that has been up your bottom is effectively no less clean than any other hand once sanitized.

The number of ways that people are injured or killed by improper or illegal use of a machine are too many to list. The fact someone was injured by the criminal action of another in itself is not a serious argument as the same logic would apply to all crime. Why not deny the privilege of driving to anyone who might even possibly drink and drive or cause fatal accidents? Yes- cars have more uses- but the intended use is a qualifier. That weapon was not intended to shoot at other drivers nor is it allowed by law- and the “intended use” argument goes against the logic that the primary factor of consideration in danger isn’t intended or legal use but real world damage by misuse. That said while it is a right to own a gun- no right exists that isn’t somehow qualified by law or restricted. Not anyone should be allowed to own a weapon or specific weapons by law. When an item or right is abused or used improperly the law must step in and regulate it in attempts to eliminate or reduce such abuse

So sad. In places without guns no one ever gets angry at someone else and reacts violently. Ask any European and they’ll tell you that motorists never fly into fits of rage and attack each other without the specter of guns. The NRA and Fox fake those YouTube dash cam videos of people being beat or getting in fist fights to push their rightist agendas. I suppose it comes down to wether one thinks that the best way to avoid drowning is to let people swim hoping they will educate themselves and use proper judgment while regulating maritime activity as best as able; or to just say that because some people drown we shouldn’t be allowed near water.

Thank you.

It’s certainly neat in that “bored Sunday at home” way, that I wouldn’t debate. Even if I personally didn’t find it neat I can’t argue what others find neat. I also find ferro fluid neat, but I wouldn’t point at ferro fluid dancing around and call it a life hack.

Her analogies are mixed up but the point she is trying to make is that circulating nudes without a persons permission is violating them. If you peek through someone’s window at them undressing it is a crime, if they let you watch them undress it is not. Same principal. If they took nudes for a specific person and purpose and now those are being used elsewhere by others it is a violation of them just as much as if you were peeping through their window. Nudes aren’t necessary but very few things in society really are. The fact your nudes could be leaked is no more a justification than the fact your banking info or SSN could be leaked. Even if you “should have known better” than to give them out- you should “know better” than to fall for many frauds but the law will still investigate and prosecute as far as practical those who do abuse those trusts.

Technically you don’t need a phone, shoes, a car, or even money to survive.

I think you likely hang around well adjusted adults (compliment.) There are social circles where cheating is normalized, or even glamorized. Either as a type of social dominance, display of desirability/ability (to please, provide for, attract, keep multiple partners.) There is also misandry and misogyny where the partner is only seen as a means to fulfill personal need and not a human to respect, as well as the related selfish immaturity, and then related insecurity and need for the validation. There’s also a circle who mostly have exposure to these types of people and as such assume this to be normal behavior in courtship. It’s somewhat a cheating “Cold War” in those cases where each partner assumes the other is guilty unless proven innocent and even then innocence is circumstantial and not a state of being. To them it’s less about the cheating and more about being caught cheating. A game played on the rush of hiding and finding secrets. I think monogomy is the majority though.

Lobster roll- aka mc lobster roll- aka mc lobster. In parts of Canada and the US. International McDonald’s has more interesting things yet.

False hope doesn’t exist. What we hope for and what reality brings are two different things, but the first step to doing anything is almost always believing we can- otherwise why try? Where hope gives us purpose or comfort and carries with it no burden, even if it’s foregone our hopes will not prevail, we still have that moment. What is life but a series of moments strung together by memory? What accounting do we take of our own lives save for wether we remember more joy than despair? Others may judge us by our legacy and deeds, but to ourselves we paint a picture of our lives and who we are by the memories that stay truest to our minds. Time is just opportunity to create more moments. I hope that many more joyous moments await that child.

While you’re technically correct- at least in the sense that someone as rich as Wayne could effectively fight crime better through philanthropy than vigilantism- most Batman stories do have Wayne using his company and alter ego doing such things while he fights crime. In the Nolan-verse a young Wayne was all in his own head (shock- a young person not making the best and most altruistic decisions because they haven’t found out who they are yet or gained much life experience...) to the point he was trying to murder a man he blamed for his parents deaths. Before being bankrupted by Bane Nolan Batman was invloved in trying to rebuild the transit infrastructure of Gotham, and we later see he was trying to create cheap nuclear power so can presume he was likewise using Wayne enterprises in a two pronged approach to fighting crime. Wayne hired skilled people he trusted to carry out these projects as his core skills lay elsewhere. Also it’s a comic based movie so it’s not the most logical.

Or the “Mandarin” depending on what moment you catch him in.

Yeah. The attitude seems to be: “you were a hero yesterday, today you’re an obsolete liability in this new world of peace”... until we need you again. That you can die in service of your country, your only real crime being having trusted in the democratic system and it’s leaders, and have people protest your funeral and disrespect your memory is a shame. Not to mention those who die in special operations or “uncomfortable” situations and don’t even get proper rights for a soldier who died in combat let alone recognition.