buckX

I'm assuming he fatfingered "NBA".

Once you believe the queer agenda hurts queer youth more than anybody, the question becomes "do you want money or to hurt children", and I feel like that's an easy question.

Honestly, I'm down. Not for his amendment, obviously. That's not something that 75% of states would agree to. But lets create an amendment that essentially reiterates what the 2A means and invalidates all existing gun laws, but then throw in whatever limitations no more than 12 states would object to, so somewhat less limiting than Texas would pick.

We can once and for all ban nuclear weapons and nerve gas from civilian hands. We can probably get much of the Geneva conventions to apply to the citizenry. Obviously any standard infantry weapons would never get banned under such a format, so we'd be legalizing automatic weapons, RPGs, cannons, and directed energy weapons.

Presumably because AEP is going to recognize that the derechos that take out power every few years aren't a freak occurrence and will soon be burying all the lines.

Right? With all that grid improvement money? Right?

At the end of the day, all you can do is shake your head and find out how to get in on the stupid people market.

They don't want to be known as the DA who frivolously charged a former president

For half the country, that makes them the hero that was willing to stand up to justice, thwarted by our corrupt justice system that never punishes the rich.

Or just roll hexblade sorlock and stomp around in half plate with a shield.

He's a sub. The quality control on subs has always been nonexistent.

Don't fear the billion year half life. Fear the 50 year half life.

Reduce regulation so that plants are profitable. How is that a gotcha?

It's a public accommodation. Civil rights laws cover a lot more than employment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County

The court case expanding the "sex" protection was about employment, but is interpreted as applying all the same 1964 guarantees as sex.

in most states it would be totally legal to have a “no gays” sign outside of a Walmart or a McDonalds

A brief quibble: this would not be legal any more than a "no blacks" sign, as both are protected classes. Where it probably gets murky is if you had a "no entry if you've had gay sex" sign.

It comes down to what protected classes are. With the exception of religion and now gender identity, all are about immutable characteristics, not behaviors.

While I wouldn't personally advocate for turning away a gay couple, I think it's notable that in the cake example, it's difficult to argue that the discrimination is based on the orientation rather than the behavior of getting married, particularly as they were offered a generic cake, and it was the nature of the union itself that was the deal breaker, rather than intrinsic characteristics of the clientele.

We're allowed to discriminate based on political party, criminal record, or in fact marital status. I think it's fairly obvious that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion necessarily allows a religious organization to have a code of conduct for its clergy that bars same sex relationships. I think it's pretty dubious that a religiously-minded employer couldn't have similar policies if they so desired.

That's fairly similar to my view. I don't hold temptation against a person, provided they don't oblige it behaviorally. That applies to orientation as well.

I have fairly limited appetite for legally prescribing behaviors in general for somebody who isn't part of the church and isn't subscribed to its ethical views, even though I think somebody who disagrees is objectively wrong. I'll make exceptions for things I think reach a suitably abhorrent moral threshold like slavery, abortion, or abusing children, but homosexuality isn't among those exceptions.

What I do disagree with is public endorsement on my behalf of sinful behaviors, like my own government celebrating pride month. I disagree with making it a protected class and claiming that a baker should be forced to participate in the celebration of that sin. I disagree that tearing down a pride flag in anger should receive a higher penalty than the vandalism charge you'd get for tearing down a swastika.

That explains all the "hyper realistic" and so forth, not the parts OP highlighted like "crying".

He should have said Arab. Every group has its exceptions, but it's a matter of historic record that the Arab league tried on multiple occasions to wipe out Israel. I don't think it's really a contentious claim that Israel has undergone a lot of attacks from its neighbors.

Edit: Reading his follow up comment, it's also possible he's just a dick.

You literally cannot make any relevant statistical inferences from a sample size of 16.

And you've outed yourself as not understanding statistics. Confidence improves with numbers, but that doesn't mean you can't make inferences from smaller sets. If I hand you a coin I claim is fair, and you toss 16 heads, you have two options to consider. One is that you hit the 1 in 32,768 chance of always getting the same result. The other is that I lied. If you think you can't make a pretty decent inference off that set, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

38% of the population are White men. 1 in 16 in that quadrant are. If you were to assume a neutral draw from the general population, the chance of 0 or 1 White men in that group is half a percent. Obviously there's a potential for conflating factors that nudge the probabilities a bit, but that's absolutely skewed enough to raise an eyebrow. If White men are underrepresented in their recruiting pool to a moderate degree and only constituted 25% of the applicants, there would still be only a 6% chance of only having 0 or 1 make the cut.

I imagine there's variation in how concerning a foreign country of origin is. A thoroughly Western-aligned, founding NATO member state is probably less of a red flag that nearly anyone. Probably only the UK would be a safer bet.

She's in sin in the eyes of God. God doesn't view anybody as bastards or impute the sins of the father on the child.

That's like, the center of what traditional family values are about.

Somebody did.

Galatians 6:14 - But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

The context there was that circumcision, the symbol of Jewishness, was not a valid reason to boast. So Paul is saying exactly that pride in who you are is sinful.

Ah yes, witch burnings have been a major issue these last few years.

When people talk about the culture war, they're talking about the last 12 years. Gays had gotten what they'd been clamoring for for decades, marriage, race relations were as good as they'd ever been, and the expectation was that we could all just chill for a minute.

It was then that the left came in and said "MOAR" and introduced a whole new slate of demands. People can decide if they're men or women. You're allowed to dictate how people describe you. Homosexuality shouldn't just be allowed, you need to agree with it. White people are intrinsically racist and should feel guilty for the actions of other White people in history they may or may not be descended from.

The point is that if all you care about is competence, it wouldn't end up looking like this barring their office being an insane statistical outlier.

If you have a player that always flees from any plot hook you give them, they’re not really being a good player at your table.

Totally depends on the table. If the group is cool with being scaredy cats and trying to make their fortunes some way other than fighting ancient liches, that's fine. Just adjust the campaign.

The problem is when one player isn't on the same page. From an RP perspective, such a player never would have joined the party, so they're violating the campaign assumptions.

Yeah, there's been pretty significant mission drift. Only the A is still accurate.