Also, I don't think its pointless to have an outdoor emotional bonding animal.
There is an autistic boy in California who owns two goats that live on a Farm where he must go to visit them. His mother drives him to the Farm serval times a day. These goats are explicitly for companionship, and have been helping the boy improve his socialization.
Since his goats are therapy animals one could definitely argue that they are work animals, but that doesn't change the fact that these outdoor only animals do in fact get plenty of emotional attention from their human.
And the same can easily apply to an outdoor dog whose owner goes out and plays with/walks the dog on a daily basis. Or any other myriad of animals whose purpose is emotional bonding. It really just depends on how much the human goes outside to be with the pet.

I would argue that a pet is an animal owned by a human for the primary purpose of companionship or pleasure, even if the animal also has usefulness. And honestly I wouldn't agruge if someone had an emotional bond with a work animal and wanted to refer to it as their pet. I am under the impression that most people who have service animals also have emotional bonds with their animal for example.
So if you obtained your cat for companionship, but it also takes care of mice whenever they get into the house, that cat is definitely still a pet. This was the case for my mom's cat, and she still feels bad that she was out of state a d couldn't be there when he had to be put down. (He got very sick suddenly).
It's a lot more grey with an animal whose primary purpose is usefulness, but I'd think it's fine if people want to think and talk about these animals as pets due to emotional bonds.

Wow. The whole point was to pretend to smoke them. I get not wanting to encourage that kind of behavior in children, but also if it's that big of a concern don't buy them this candy.
Also, there is a difference between a consequence and just being mean. Taking the candy away seems completely reasonable. A stren talking to about inappropriate behavior seems reasonable. A bit of a raised voice is probably inevitable because you are on a road trip with children who are misbehaving. Yelling for half a state is excessive. Smashing the candy is frankly inappropriate. You just successfully taught your children that destructive outbursts are a reasonable response to someone disobeying orders.
For those of you who aren't in the US, half a state worth of driving is about two hours. Even if this is an exaggeration, I assume @jasonmon 's mother yelled for at least 20min, and I would guess closer to an hour.
Breaking things just isn't a good response to nearly any circumstance

Actually, non-profit organizations can have employees who are paid. They can even have all of their employees be paid.
It 100% has to do with the fact that non-profit organizations must post profits back into the business/used for charity, where for profit companies usually have owners/investors who make money from some of that profit.

It's because you mentioned you don't take your pills or protien powder with anything to drink. I has assumed you meant you didn't drink alcohol.

I definitely think @guest_ is on to something with his life and let live policy. I do think its important that this philosophy not prevent measures of public safety however. You are welcome to drink excessively if that's what you want, knowing the risks and given that you are of age, but you still cannot drink and drive because it puts other lives in danger.
Also @guest_ I am not trying to tell you how to live your life, however I am concerned about you remaining hydrated. For you health and well being I recommend getting plenty of water in your diet whether that be directly from water, from foods high in water, or other hydrating drinks (such as coffee, juice, tea, or milk; but not soda, alchohol, or anything too high in sugar) Do note that caffeine does dehydrate you, so if you choose to go the route of getting water from coffee/black tea you will need to keep this in mind. Coffee does still net hydrate most people, just be mindful.

Actually, it's not uncommon that you actually do have to sue, or at least make it clear you have the capacity to sue. Sure, someone who can afford to hire a good lawyer will probably be fine for threatening to sue, but the truth is if you can't afford a lawyer the insurance company very well won't pay as they don't think you can sue. Because that's the world we live in.
And I would be more inclined to agree that expense wasn't a valid agrugement if the agrugement was purely "insurance is too expensive and insurance companies should be required to charge less". But that isn't the arguement. Insurance companies have localized monopolies is many areas that essentially mean that people don't have choice in their insurance company. Not for healthcare. I would be less opposed if it was expensive within a competitive market that allowed customers the ability to chose some companies over others for reasons of costs and quality of service as is possible with things like car insurance.

And YouTube was never non-profit. It has always been for profit, as is Google for profit. They just make their profits from Ad revenue mostly.
Great point @bethorien

I agree with the fact that it's a spectrum, but excessive drinking is never good for your health. Also, and addiction that hasn't ruined your life (still going to work, paying bills, ect) is still an addiction. I have a caffeine addiction and it doesn't affect my work or really have a strong impact on my social life, but also I get debilitating headaches if I don't drink enough coffee. I am an addict. Caffeine is a lot healthier than alcohol, so I'm not particularly interested in recovery, but I am mindful not to let it get worse as I know that WOULD start ruining my life

The problem with this theory is that insurance is designed to cover things that come up. That's the whole point. And insurance companies often attempt to charge as much as possible while keeping as much as they can. Even if they do cover something you often need to jump through excessive hoops in hopes you'll give up and just not get the care you need.
I get that insurance is for profit, but they have also been allowed to get away with a lot of unfair treatment due to having local monopolies and unregulated business practices and people cannot afford to move to get better insurance.

...@tusabes what are you even trying to say?
First of all: Plenty of religions are against homosexuality, not just Christians
Secondly: "Chruchs" actually refers specifically to Christain organizations of faith/places of worship. Other religions actually have different words for their places of worship. "Church " can only mean something involving religions outside of Christianity when used as a noun meaning "instutionized religion as a social or political force" which the above sign clearly does not mean.

That's not actually what makes you a nonprofit organization. Non profit organizations simply must put profits gained back into the organization/charitable work. For example, a church could hold a fundraiser concert, charge admission, pay the band to come play, and the put the profits gained from the concert into replacing the chruch projector. Non-profit organizations are simply "not for profit ". Profits can be gained, and fees can be charges mandatorily in order to receive services, profits just have to go back into the organization. Rather than to an owner/investors.

I did not know that. That is so much worse.
This actually means that the government has a GREATER impact on church doings though. Because the government has the power to dictate your tax exemption status based on if you are a religion. Giving preferred treatment to certain beliefs over others (ie "cults").
There would be less impact if chruches were expected to pay taxes like any other organization unless they were otherwise tax exempt such as for being a nonprofit organization.

@guest_ is right about the economy being dependent upon more births, but this is also going to lead to economic collapse either way if nothing is done to change the economic system. More people will only put unbearable stress on the resource pool in the long run. And the lack of future children to support the baby bomber retirement is an issue our government has known about since the beginning and has just been refusing to deal with until it becomes literally unsolvable.

Who is a gay first baseman.

@silvermyth Exactly my point. Some people actually NEED electric wheelchairs in order to have autonomous maneuverability. And everyone should be allowed to have that a basic human right. No one should need to be dependent on others to move across a room, not when their is technology that can allow them to do it on their own. It's hard enough that people in these circumstances are often looking at a life where they will ALWAYS require assistance in things most of is take for granted. Knowing you will never be able to bath yourself. You will need help in the restroom for your entire life. That's hard. No one should have to live with "You can't take yourself from your living room to your kitchen table." Not when we can do something about it

Well, I actually think a lot of people don't believe hell exists. Also, its nihilism. People don't want to go to hell, they don't care if they do. That's sort of the whole point of nilhism, nothing matters. Embracing the worse case scenario is an expression of apathy

I am pansexual.

Thanks @guest I knew that I should have mentioned it probably. :)

When were you born?
Burning DVDs was never particularly common in the United States. This is largely because laws were put into place that made it illegal to digitize your own movies for personal use, and therefore technology to copy and burn DVDs was never really made free and easily accessible.
Piracy of DVDs still happened. But it was far less common than piracy of music. And a lot of piracy of movies has been with streaming movies.
Also, companies eventually realized that it was more profitable to provide a digital copy when people brought a DVD-Blue Ray combo pack as it made people more willing to buy the movie legally.

Actually, Chruches are typically tax exempt because they are "non-profit organizations".
And Non-profit organizations DO make profit. And that's okay. Its a bit of a misnomer really. Non-profit organizations put whatever profits they make back into services. And that can include paying wages to employees, even including paying better wages in order to attract/retain good employees. None of that is inherently wrong. The problem is that some (not even most) chruches are not run like non-profit organizations. Money is not spent to the end if improving the church or the things the church supports, its spent to the end of making the leaders of the church wealthy. And that is the problem. The problem is that some churches are run like for profit companies. And are still tax exempt.

So any agrugement against gay couples having the same tax deductions on the grounds that they cannot create children is irresponsible.