|
|
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 10:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 17 2016 10:38 Cascade wrote:
Hmm, at some point I guess magpie and jimmie should move to PMs, but seems like a few others are a bit engaged as well.
I've only skimmed your posts at best, do you two feel like you are going in circles? Are you still going somewhere with this discussion? To be able to go in circles they have to leave their starting points. Also this discussion seems a bit removed from the ethos of the thread. I'm happy to move it to PMs if that is what everyone would like I didn't see this posts while I was responding. That being said if he continues to throw very loosely veiled public accusations of me supporting rape or being pro rape I will continue to defend myself publicly.
If you are afraid of your public reputation, you probably shouldn't worry about accusations from magpie, but rather from the fact that you two have hijacked the thread with walls of text for several pages. 
I personally don't care for this discussion any more, but if multiple others (more than you and magpie) still are into it and feel like you are moving forward, by all means, go ahead.
|
On December 17 2016 10:47 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 10:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 17 2016 10:38 Cascade wrote:
Hmm, at some point I guess magpie and jimmie should move to PMs, but seems like a few others are a bit engaged as well.
I've only skimmed your posts at best, do you two feel like you are going in circles? Are you still going somewhere with this discussion? To be able to go in circles they have to leave their starting points. Also this discussion seems a bit removed from the ethos of the thread. I'm happy to move it to PMs if that is what everyone would like I didn't see this posts while I was responding. That being said if he continues to throw very loosely veiled public accusations of me supporting rape or being pro rape I will continue to defend myself publicly. If you are afraid of your public reputation, you probably shouldn't worry about accusations from magpie, but rather from the fact that you two have hijacked the thread with walls of text for several pages. I personally don't care for this discussion any more, but if multiple others (more than you and magpie) still are into it and feel like you are moving forward, by all means, go ahead.
In my defense I've mainly been trying to move the discussion towards the one on informed consent in medical research. Hence why I've only been literally copy and pasting my past answers to his questions.
I'm definitely done trying to explain why drugged people can't really consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 11:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 11:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 10:47 Cascade wrote:On December 17 2016 10:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 17 2016 10:38 Cascade wrote:
Hmm, at some point I guess magpie and jimmie should move to PMs, but seems like a few others are a bit engaged as well.
I've only skimmed your posts at best, do you two feel like you are going in circles? Are you still going somewhere with this discussion? To be able to go in circles they have to leave their starting points. Also this discussion seems a bit removed from the ethos of the thread. I'm happy to move it to PMs if that is what everyone would like I didn't see this posts while I was responding. That being said if he continues to throw very loosely veiled public accusations of me supporting rape or being pro rape I will continue to defend myself publicly. If you are afraid of your public reputation, you probably shouldn't worry about accusations from magpie, but rather from the fact that you two have hijacked the thread with walls of text for several pages. I personally don't care for this discussion any more, but if multiple others (more than you and magpie) still are into it and feel like you are moving forward, by all means, go ahead. In my defense I've mainly been trying to move the discussion towards the one on informed consent in medical research. Hence why I've only been literally copy and pasting my past answers to his questions. I'm definitely done trying to explain why drugged people can't really consent. Says he is done than throws in a jab that I apparently think drugged people can consent. Despite my last post being exactly that I think drugged people can not consent and it is rape. Fine I'll play his game. I'm sick of explaining why TM thinks that a 30 year old having sex with a 12 year old is the same as a 30 yearold sober women having sex with a 30 year old drunk guy. Man is TM a bad person for thinking such, do not listen to any of his actual posts because this is so damning.
Much apologies, I didn't mean to trigger you with that word. Would "imbibing controlled substances" be better than drugged? Is that when you think it's okay to fuck girls? I want to make peace with you on this so it's super important I get this right.
|
On December 17 2016 11:04 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not worries about whether you think I'm hop or not but those accusations are on a different level. Also this thread is often "hijacked" for various discussions and when I don't care I just don't read them, and I feel that other people can do the same. And if they are interested they are welcome to read and comment.
Yeah that true. I think it's normally more people involved in the hijacks though, and it's usually a bit lighter in spirit. I got the impression that both of you are pretty fed up with the discussion, but didn't want to leave the others' statements unanswered. It seemed like no one was really enjoying the discussion any more, which is why I tried to break it up. :o)
But I only skimmed the posts, and I don't know what you think or feel (of course), so I may have read it wrong, sorry. I didn't mean to offend or cut off a good discussion.
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 11:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 11:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 11:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 10:47 Cascade wrote:On December 17 2016 10:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 17 2016 10:38 Cascade wrote:
Hmm, at some point I guess magpie and jimmie should move to PMs, but seems like a few others are a bit engaged as well.
I've only skimmed your posts at best, do you two feel like you are going in circles? Are you still going somewhere with this discussion? To be able to go in circles they have to leave their starting points. Also this discussion seems a bit removed from the ethos of the thread. I'm happy to move it to PMs if that is what everyone would like I didn't see this posts while I was responding. That being said if he continues to throw very loosely veiled public accusations of me supporting rape or being pro rape I will continue to defend myself publicly. If you are afraid of your public reputation, you probably shouldn't worry about accusations from magpie, but rather from the fact that you two have hijacked the thread with walls of text for several pages. I personally don't care for this discussion any more, but if multiple others (more than you and magpie) still are into it and feel like you are moving forward, by all means, go ahead. In my defense I've mainly been trying to move the discussion towards the one on informed consent in medical research. Hence why I've only been literally copy and pasting my past answers to his questions. I'm definitely done trying to explain why drugged people can't really consent. Says he is done than throws in a jab that I apparently think drugged people can consent. Despite my last post being exactly that I think drugged people can not consent and it is rape. Fine I'll play his game. I'm sick of explaining why TM thinks that a 30 year old having sex with a 12 year old is the same as a 30 yearold sober women having sex with a 30 year old drunk guy. Man is TM a bad person for thinking such, do not listen to any of his actual posts because this is so damning. Much apologies, I didn't mean to trigger you with that word. Would "imbibing controlled substances" be better than drugged? Is that when you think it's okay to fuck girls? I want to make peace with you on this so it's super important I get this right. For the millionth time there is a HUGE difference between drugging someone and someone drugging themselves. It is called free will and choice. Much like I think women can Choose if they want to have sex with someone or not. I guess when you have never experienced a women wanting to have sex with you this could be confusing. And I made it clear that I think your point is so stupid because for it to be true you would need to believe that it should be true for both men and women. When you keep saying that " want to fuck girls and blah blah" it shows you don't believe this. But what can I expect from some one who thinks fucking 12 yearolds (your words) is the same as a women having sex with a drunk guy. odd to me that you get upset when someone clearly twists your words to make you look bad and try to further there point......
Really sorry, I'm really trying here.
You win. Women who drug themselves deserve whatever they get. You win.
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 11:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 11:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 11:24 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 11:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 11:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 10:47 Cascade wrote:On December 17 2016 10:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 10:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 17 2016 10:38 Cascade wrote:
Hmm, at some point I guess magpie and jimmie should move to PMs, but seems like a few others are a bit engaged as well.
I've only skimmed your posts at best, do you two feel like you are going in circles? Are you still going somewhere with this discussion? To be able to go in circles they have to leave their starting points. Also this discussion seems a bit removed from the ethos of the thread. I'm happy to move it to PMs if that is what everyone would like I didn't see this posts while I was responding. That being said if he continues to throw very loosely veiled public accusations of me supporting rape or being pro rape I will continue to defend myself publicly. If you are afraid of your public reputation, you probably shouldn't worry about accusations from magpie, but rather from the fact that you two have hijacked the thread with walls of text for several pages. I personally don't care for this discussion any more, but if multiple others (more than you and magpie) still are into it and feel like you are moving forward, by all means, go ahead. In my defense I've mainly been trying to move the discussion towards the one on informed consent in medical research. Hence why I've only been literally copy and pasting my past answers to his questions. I'm definitely done trying to explain why drugged people can't really consent. Says he is done than throws in a jab that I apparently think drugged people can consent. Despite my last post being exactly that I think drugged people can not consent and it is rape. Fine I'll play his game. I'm sick of explaining why TM thinks that a 30 year old having sex with a 12 year old is the same as a 30 yearold sober women having sex with a 30 year old drunk guy. Man is TM a bad person for thinking such, do not listen to any of his actual posts because this is so damning. Much apologies, I didn't mean to trigger you with that word. Would "imbibing controlled substances" be better than drugged? Is that when you think it's okay to fuck girls? I want to make peace with you on this so it's super important I get this right. For the millionth time there is a HUGE difference between drugging someone and someone drugging themselves. It is called free will and choice. Much like I think women can Choose if they want to have sex with someone or not. I guess when you have never experienced a women wanting to have sex with you this could be confusing. And I made it clear that I think your point is so stupid because for it to be true you would need to believe that it should be true for both men and women. When you keep saying that " want to fuck girls and blah blah" it shows you don't believe this. But what can I expect from some one who thinks fucking 12 yearolds (your words) is the same as a women having sex with a drunk guy. odd to me that you get upset when someone clearly twists your words to make you look bad and try to further there point...... Really sorry, I'm really trying here. You win. Women who drug themselves deserve whatever they get. You win. Again I know reading comprehension is not your thing. Maybe you are half reading while looking at pics of these 12 year olds you like (and I'm not gender specific u may like both I don't know) PEOPLE who CHOSE to do DRUGS or ALCOHOL can still CHOOSE to have sex and it not be rape. If they are passed out or can't verbalize that CONSENT than they are raped. I wish you were not such a sexist and always made this about gender.
Apologies man. What I meant to say is that I you're totally right. Just because it impairs them when walking, talking, driving, working, or making decisions--drugs totally don't affect people's judgement when fucking. Why didn't you just say that from the start? You win, you have a drunk wife after all, you should know right?
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 11:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 11:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 11:33 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 11:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 11:24 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 11:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 11:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 10:47 Cascade wrote:On December 17 2016 10:44 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm happy to move it to PMs if that is what everyone would like I didn't see this posts while I was responding. That being said if he continues to throw very loosely veiled public accusations of me supporting rape or being pro rape I will continue to defend myself publicly. If you are afraid of your public reputation, you probably shouldn't worry about accusations from magpie, but rather from the fact that you two have hijacked the thread with walls of text for several pages. I personally don't care for this discussion any more, but if multiple others (more than you and magpie) still are into it and feel like you are moving forward, by all means, go ahead. In my defense I've mainly been trying to move the discussion towards the one on informed consent in medical research. Hence why I've only been literally copy and pasting my past answers to his questions. I'm definitely done trying to explain why drugged people can't really consent. Says he is done than throws in a jab that I apparently think drugged people can consent. Despite my last post being exactly that I think drugged people can not consent and it is rape. Fine I'll play his game. I'm sick of explaining why TM thinks that a 30 year old having sex with a 12 year old is the same as a 30 yearold sober women having sex with a 30 year old drunk guy. Man is TM a bad person for thinking such, do not listen to any of his actual posts because this is so damning. Much apologies, I didn't mean to trigger you with that word. Would "imbibing controlled substances" be better than drugged? Is that when you think it's okay to fuck girls? I want to make peace with you on this so it's super important I get this right. For the millionth time there is a HUGE difference between drugging someone and someone drugging themselves. It is called free will and choice. Much like I think women can Choose if they want to have sex with someone or not. I guess when you have never experienced a women wanting to have sex with you this could be confusing. And I made it clear that I think your point is so stupid because for it to be true you would need to believe that it should be true for both men and women. When you keep saying that " want to fuck girls and blah blah" it shows you don't believe this. But what can I expect from some one who thinks fucking 12 yearolds (your words) is the same as a women having sex with a drunk guy. odd to me that you get upset when someone clearly twists your words to make you look bad and try to further there point...... Really sorry, I'm really trying here. You win. Women who drug themselves deserve whatever they get. You win. Again I know reading comprehension is not your thing. Maybe you are half reading while looking at pics of these 12 year olds you like (and I'm not gender specific u may like both I don't know) PEOPLE who CHOSE to do DRUGS or ALCOHOL can still CHOOSE to have sex and it not be rape. If they are passed out or can't verbalize that CONSENT than they are raped. I wish you were not such a sexist and always made this about gender. Apologies man. What I meant to say is that I you're totally right. Just because it impairs them when walking, talking, driving, working, or making decisions--drugs totally don't affect people's judgement when fucking. Why didn't you just say that from the start? You win, you have a drunk wife after all, you should know right? This is my actual last post on the subject because you are going to continue with the pointless low blows and don't even have any wit or originality when delivering them. I used the example of my wife having sex with me when I was drunk to show how your catch all once someone is drunk they can't consent was bullshit. I used this direction partly because for some reason you seem to believe that women don't want to have sex with men and that men must try to trick them them into it and this is a situation where it does not apply. I was also using it because I can clearly state after the fact that I said consented before during and after. I also tried repeatedly to get you to define drunk because if you are talking blinking with only one eye and falling down that is a lot different than having a buzz. But I have been through that 50 times and since it does not fit your every man is a rapist but you angle I guess you don't care. Have a good night.
My bad, didn't mean to hurt you. I will cede this conversation and agree to your "so long as they don't fall down they're fair game" philosophy. Totally what every woman would agree to right? Peace out.
|
Germany25658 Posts
Please take it to PM, you are both being dicks.
|
I'm attempting to create the absolute cheapest way to live while sacrificing the least amount of happiness. Some ways I've come up with to save are:
Shop for groceries primarily at Aldi.
Buy consumables (toilet paper, paper towels, facial tissues etc) in bulk online at cheapest for most quantity I can find.
Buy non bulk household items (washing gloves, plunger etc) at Walmart, amazon, or jet.com, whichevers cheapest.
Making my own laundry detergent.
Programmable thermostat.
Electric blanket and heated mattress warmer to turn down thermostat too.
I found out I can get an efficient hot water heater that saves on utilities by about $100 a year, bought with a $350 rebate and a $300 tax credit.
Buying energy star only appliances.
Using fuel efficient car like a Prius or something and keeping air filters cleaned and tires inflated.
Cutting cable and newspaper subscriptions and maybe cheaper phone plan.
What are some other ways to save money you guys can think of that I don't have? I think shopping at Aldi and Walmart and online mostly means I won't be able to use coupons, which is fine with me as those are fairly cheap already and I don't think I'll be able to save any money with coupons there.
|
sacrificing the least amount of happiness that pretty much killed your whole argument.
|
On December 19 2016 05:55 xM(Z wrote:that pretty much killed your whole argument.
...No it didn't. It's a stipulation of living cheaply. You can still be frugal and happy.
If I had said while sacrificing the MOST amount of happiness, then that would have just killed my whole argument because I'd just live in a box eating ramen every single day to save money...
|
Move to something that is not the US and has cheap and efficient public transport so that you can ditch the car, which is a huge part of the expenses. Or in general, move to a cheap country, and you might be able to cut the costs of living by an order of magnitude. However I do not know where your income comes from, so it's hard to tell if you could keep it 
I would be interested to hear how you make your own laundry detergent. Are you running a chemistry lab, or is there an easy way for it? Also, are these things really that expensive in the US, I feel like it is a non-item in my expenses.
What kind of food do you eat? You can cut immense costs by cooking from basic ingredients in Europe, I am not sure if it holds in the US, because I heard that for example vegetables are expensive? I don't know. But here, if you are willing to cook, preferably in large batches (if you don't mind having the same thing for a couple of days), you can eat for almost nothing, compared to any pre-made or, god forbid, restaurant food - and it can be really healthy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
