Also tomatoes are fruits so suck it Italy

If you look at it as dollars per time spent, it’ll probably be far better value than the majority of games you could get cheaper. Assuming you like it of course (but if you think you will, you probably will).

Seriously, this is just all the people that never watched women’s sports anyways lol

It hit all those things??

This is exactly it. Of course battery production is harmful too, but not only is it less harmful than other sources to extract, you also don’t have to burn batteries to generate the power. With fossil fuels, the extraction is massively more harmful and then the use itself creates even more pollution.

Ehh I dunno… I'm as atheist as anyone with an IQ above 60, but I think religion is just a convenient scapegoat for mental illness here. I'm pretty sure someone who shoots strangers on the highway would have done it in a world without religion too, and they would say it's a different mystical force that made them do it. I don't think Christianity actually moved this person to do this.

"Oh uh… the cheque is in the mail!"

This is a great sentiment but you really have to work on your delivery haha. Your first comment gives the impression that you feel superior because you make more money.

Wait, are there cars with lights/wipers on a touch screen?

"I wanna" Trump

Ah yeah, that's not as nice as I was picturing then. I still can't help but side with the guy at least a bit though… it's just something about the predatory nature of lotteries. In fact it's almost more offensive that it's run by a government haha.

Normally I'd agree with you on the basis of reason alone, but I think lottery companies can stand being gouged once in a while.

Edit: shows how little I know about lotteries haha

Both can be true though. I don't support things like Uber and Lyft but only because of how horribly they treat their employees. I don't have much sympathy for the taxi industry that never bothered to modernized over the last 50 years.

"Undue" is a word with a huge range of meaning though. You're buying a device whose sole purpose is to kill or injure, and it's exceptionally good at doing those things accidentally. If you want to own a device like that, accident insurance is not all undue.

In fact it's kinda surprising that people can get guns without it. I feel like in an alternate universe where gun insurance was the norm, people would think it's insane to remove that requirement. It's a requirement for cars which are now less deadly than guns and arguably way more important to people's survival, but people think gun ownership is such a marker of liberty that they're willing to put the rest of society at risk for it.

It isn't if they want to own a tool that can accidentally and immediately end a life. The guy below you made a joke about a car and insurance, but that's actually a great point. Just because you can find a $300 car doesn't mean you're absolved from getting insurance in case you crash or kill someone. And that's a car, something that's crucial to a lot of people's survival. Even better argument for a gun.

I appreciate the info because frankly I didn't know they were that cheap. I still don't think that absolves someone of being able to pay for an accidental injury/death caused by a tool that's designed to do specifically that.

Why are "the poors" buying expensive guns? If you're buying a tool that can accidentally and instantly murder someone very easily, and you have no way to pay for that mistake, then gun ownership is too expensive for you.

Your case is for reasonable vs unreasonable expenses though. When someone can afford thousands for a gun and many other recurring expenses, a $50-100/month policy is completely reasonable. At the very least, it doesn't separate gun ownership into different wealth classes.

Qui*

I also hate SAGAs, and I also have to RMB trying to FIT. Agreed it's RBA!