When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
2 comments
Newest
OldestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don
2 years ago
It is really stupid she refused the knife. Yes, it is made for killing as opposed to a weapon for defense, however, that doesn’t obligate her to use it except in circumstances where deadly force is required*, and the monsters they will be killing (note: WILL be, not “MAY” be) are not human.
*Guns, IRL, are also deadly, however, having one does not obligate a person to use it except in cases where deadly force is justified: ie. for the owner to prevent death or great/severe bodily harm, to themselves or others. This viewpoint, that a tool that creates deadly force can only be used for killing, or that the wielder will inevitably be forced to use it to kill, seems a lot like propaganda anti-2A people like to push.
Don
2 years ago
“so thanks but no thanks”
I don’t understand why people keep saying that. That phrase is used by low IQ plebs who don’t understand English – like AOC.
First off, it makes no sense to say “thanks” twice, it’s redundant; Second of all, the phrase isn’t “no thank you.” You aren’t saying it to NOT thank someone – that is ghetto manners/speech – you are saying “no, thank you.” To understand this (unlike someone who never learned basic English properly): first, you are telling the person you’re addressing “No,” then you are saying “but thank you.” “No, thanks” are two separate sentiments. This is proper basic English, not the English used by those with surprisingly low IQs. So for the phrase she used to reject his offer to make sense, it would better be written as “Thanks/Thank you, but no,” or “Thanks/Thank you, but I won’t use it.”
It is really stupid she refused the knife. Yes, it is made for killing as opposed to a weapon for defense, however, that doesn’t obligate her to use it except in circumstances where deadly force is required*, and the monsters they will be killing (note: WILL be, not “MAY” be) are not human.
*Guns, IRL, are also deadly, however, having one does not obligate a person to use it except in cases where deadly force is justified: ie. for the owner to prevent death or great/severe bodily harm, to themselves or others. This viewpoint, that a tool that creates deadly force can only be used for killing, or that the wielder will inevitably be forced to use it to kill, seems a lot like propaganda anti-2A people like to push.
“so thanks but no thanks”
I don’t understand why people keep saying that. That phrase is used by low IQ plebs who don’t understand English – like AOC.
First off, it makes no sense to say “thanks” twice, it’s redundant; Second of all, the phrase isn’t “no thank you.” You aren’t saying it to NOT thank someone – that is ghetto manners/speech – you are saying “no, thank you.” To understand this (unlike someone who never learned basic English properly): first, you are telling the person you’re addressing “No,” then you are saying “but thank you.” “No, thanks” are two separate sentiments. This is proper basic English, not the English used by those with surprisingly low IQs. So for the phrase she used to reject his offer to make sense, it would better be written as “Thanks/Thank you, but no,” or “Thanks/Thank you, but I won’t use it.”