• 0 Posts
  • 84 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle



  • The news articles just keep saying it was a slur used in Italian, but never mention what it was. (almost like trying to report it, but also burying it at the same time to save grace)

    After a bit of searching, the word is the loose Italian translation of the “F” slur used in English. I honestly can say I’ve never heard that word (at least in English) used by anyone but true bigots (and immature idiot kids online), even older people.

    I did however have an English teacher in high school (who was openly gay) stop the class once, when someone ask about the subject of slurs. (namely racial ones) His relatively succinct response was that any slur is owned by the people in subject, and only they can choose use it to weaken its hate or let it die from disuse. (I sort of miss him, as he liked to speak to us with a frankness like adults rather than hide things like people do to kids, 12 and under)

    I say that if he can’t stop using it, even “accidentally”, he may not really be as accepting as people think, and it is all just a bit of an act to try to keep that religon alive with gen y+.









  • One of her more recent and popular roles is Black Widow in the Marvel/Avengers movies. The one with red hair, dresses in an all black leather biker suit like an assassin, and acts as the sort of voice of reason to help keep the heroes grounded. (like being able to calm down the hulk when he’s having one of his fits)

    Another role was as the title character in Lucy. The movie where she was conned/forced to be a drug mule and inadvertently got dosed with what she was carrying. This sort of supercharged her mind to superhuman levels, and turned her into a perfect assassin to be able to seek revenge on everyone who did her wrong.




  • Yes. I’m not saying that they wouldn’t try to come up with bogus/farfetched regulations, but they legitimately cannot do anything about what goes on behind closed doors in someone’s house. To do otherwise would be a breach in that person’s right to privacy. It’d be like an HOA telling you, you have to vacuum/sweep/mop every other day, otherwise you can be fined. (or saying you can’t have sex on Sundays)

    HOAs do have some extralegal clout, but the right to privacy stops them from interfering in anything you do that isn’t openly visible. (i.e. Doing a meatspin in front of a window facing the street can be penalized, but taking a dump in your kitchen sink can’t, unless the sink is in front of a window facing the street and the blinds/curtains/shutters are open.)


  • Illicit rule making being in their repertoire wouldn’t make it any more just (two wrongs, and everything) or enforceable, as the gun owner could easily just not abide by or pay it. Also, Making any regulation/fee or anything to “frustrate” gun owners could also be seen as harassment.

    There is no indication that the guy ever used or brandished the gun outside his home, which is where the HOA’s jurisdiction would be. Like I said, the HOA can’t do a damn thing about what goes on inside someone’s home. If they were to try, it would fall flat the minute it gets challenged especially with Kansas being one of the states having a castle doctrine which implies the possibile use of a gun (i.e. deadly force) for defense.

    The case is likely going to be about the castle doctrine and it’s limits on whether someone standing on your doorstep constitutes a threat, (which it doesn’t) along with trying to prove that the kid was trying to break in (this I doubt) which could justify an imminent threat.

    I am in no way on the side of the old man. I actually think he was completely in the wrong (also got off way too easy) and the kid was legitimately just at the wrong house.

    My opinion is the man should be evaluated for mental fitness and if unfit would be required to need a caretaker, of sorts. If no mental issues, be tried and convicted for the first degree assault (attempted homicide) charge.

    The HOA however does not have any actual stake in it that I’ve found, as the kid was shot from behind the storm door by the old man who was inside his house.




  • Unmonitored or unrestricted, no. Just no…

    There are too many bad people out there and young children don’t always know how to keep their info hidden. The risk is just too high. Even one out of a million kids finding one of those unsavory people, would be too much. Think about if your hypothetical child found that one child predator and they got them to share whatever, like pictures; their school/schedule; etc.

    Just look at roblox, a game more or less built and intended for children. There’s been quite a few reports of kids being preyed upon to which they have several lawsuits against them for giving a false sense of safety.

    E: fixed name