Themadbeagle

Always got to love victim blaming. It's always a class act.

Be mad then I guess lol

I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some "correct" way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.

Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.

I've been trying to answer you question for like an hour using my limited understanding of cancer, viruses, and long term, low dose, chemical exposure. Honestly I'm not a biologist or anything so I really don't have an answer either the most I can say on the matter is that these problems are really not compatible. The way you "target" a cancer cell, or "target" a virus, or target chemicals are whole different and don't really share anything in common. I can also say that BPA is more a problem of long term, low dose exposure that we don't really expect to see a realistic end to anytime soon. You can target it in the body, but we are going to keep being exposed to it for years to come, even if there is a ban on it. The oceans are full of it, the waterways are full of it. Much of the world is already contaminated with it.

I knew exactly what video that would link to before I clicked. Great video, glad to see someone else reference it.

My point wasn't that attempting to gain political power was not a necessary part of swaying the political landscape, it was that it should not be the goal. More over, why the all out rejection of mutual aid on the parties part? As you stated mutual aid is good as a means of charity, but they rejected the ideal wholely on the lack of conversion. Yet again, to me that is evidence the goal is not betterment, it is political power. Does the party think that the only people who diserve betterment are party members? That is, as stated before, a sign of being no better than the Democrat or Republican parties in my eye. I reject In and out crowd poltics no matter who the peddler is.

I mean just reading through the first part of the article, it is pretty damning that they think mutual aid doesn't work because it doesn't convert enough people to due paying memebers. If the goal isn't the betterment of people, but of furthering political power, then you are no better then the Democrats or Republicans.

Had a dude come around in my neighborhood a few times. It was the middle of the summer and it can get above 100 where I live. Gave him pbj and some water because if was all I had at the time. He only asked for food and water. Haven't seen him in a year now though.

I agree with the idea, but I highly doubt this is why they are not there in practice. I could be wrong as this is just purely speculative on my part, but I don't have a lot of faith in most US politicians.

Teachers can just be cruel sometimes. Some of my worst bullys in school were teachers. One of my teachers meowed like a cat at my friend in front of the whole class to mock my friend for him meowing.

As opposed to your evidence based approach of using divination to determine the person you replied to in your original comment was in some sort of minority of opinion?