Removed by mod

It’s pretty simple: the bugs weren’t gay.

Not everyone can do it, because the necessary muscles (auricular muscles) are considered vestigial at this point, meaning not everyone has them or doesn’t have large enough ones to wiggle their ears. In other words, evolution is slowly deleting them from our bodies as a species, with some of us being “further along” than others.

Fair point, that may be necessary.

The niece is really good about finding ways to entertain herself and the nephew will always try and take it for himself and intrude, usually not in a compromising sort of way. Obviously, this is pretty typical kid behavior overall.

I think this is your core problem, really. Who is policing your younger nephew’s behavior in this regard? Even at that age, being able to accept limits without losing your temper is important. Maybe offering him an alternative activity as a distraction would help? Younger siblings often want to be involved in whatever their older sibling is doing, so there’s an element of normalcy to your nephew’s behavior certainly, but it’s also not acceptable and that needs to be communicated clearly to him. He needs to have ways to entertain himself when his big sister isn’t available or at the very least learn to not take over any activity she engages in.

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/121021051717-united-nations-every-woman-every-child-dinner-2012.jpg?q=w_1110,c_fill

You wear diamond-encrusted glasses, don’t you?

Just like anyone who would drive a car through a school yard mowing down kids, that person has mental issues.

No, mental health issues are specific and do not encompass simply “being fucked up.” You can be plenty fucked up and not be mentally ill, and most of the people who get violent in the way you’re describing are simply extremists, not people suffering from a psychological disorder.

I work in mental health and I’m very sympathetic to what you’re talking about. I’d actually be opposed to any law that used a psychiatric hospitalization as a criteria alone for restricting gun rights. I said “serious mental illness,” because I meant things like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, not major depression. And even within those diagnoses, people aren’t always a risk. It’s a delicate subject, but I think whatever solution, we need laws that (a) have an impact on gun misuse and (b) are flexible enough that they don’t trap people unnecessarily in the net.

Sure. For starters, they keep going on and on about mass shootings and how we need to cut access to guns to stop all the mass shootings.

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not. The rise in mass shootings is unfortunately an aspect of modern American culture and copycat-ism.

Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).

I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.

They are unfortunately correct. I can’t count how many failed attempts I’ve made to try to convince many of my liberal peers that trying to kill the 2nd Amendment or functionally prevent people from buying guns is doing more harm to our collective efforts than good by alienating independents who are otherwise liberal-leaning, but staunchly support 2A. Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem. Conservatives aren’t much better, unfortunately, and they’re three times as stubborn, so here we are.

Good question whether or not invisibility extends to the infrared and ultraviolet spectra. That’d be pretty clutch.

Of course, obtaining evidence in this way makes it illegal to use in court

That’s why I said citizen journalist. Exposing corrupt people in the news is a major step towards criminal court, and even if there is no case, public opinion can be swayed and that’s a death sentence in many ways.

If I could somehow be assured that the world wouldn’t immediately turn in me when they discovered my super power and try to capture me for its own ends, teleportation. If not…definitely invisibility. Much easier to hide the power, not just myself.

You could use your invisibility to become the most effective citizen journalist in the world though. Get footage of Exxon execs scheming with politicians to fuck the planet or get world leaders on tape dismissing the Geneva conventions, that sort of thing.

No, that super sense wasn’t one of the options.

No, I’m afraid you don’t know how scientific claims work. The OP read a claim that “weed makes you not dream.” They didn’t read a claim that “some people report not dreaming after they’ve gone to sleep after smoking weed,” it was a blanket statement about an effect of marijuana.

The fact that you have gone to sleep after smoking and not remembered your dreams afterward does not mean it was the weed that did it, and it certainly doesn’t mean it has that affect on most people, let alone everybody. The issue isn’t that the OP’s claim is true because it happened to you; this is why anecdotal evidence is not accepted as a basis for factual claims in science. There are too many potential confounding factors in any individual case. Plenty of people claim to have seen ghosts; that doesn’t mean ghosts exist.

“Those shell walls were thin, bitch, and I’m already tired of your shit!”

A lot of people think that wolf packs have an “alpha” wolf, but wolf experts will tell you that’s a myth.

OP said they read that weed makes you not dream. I happen to know from my education that is not the case.

Sometimes X really doesn’t happen. I never claimed to know everything, but I do know this.

Not a weed smoker, but I am in mental health. Two things:

1.) That little factoid is a falsehood. Plenty of marijuana users remember their dreams.

2.) As indicated at the end of #1, you always dream when you sleep. You just don’t necessarily remember your dreams when you wake up. We don’t know exactly why we dream—there are several theories—but we know it’s an integral part of our sleep. It’s theorized that what we experience as dreams may be our brains encoding our memories of our experiences since the last time we slept into long-term memory and possibly doing a particular type of problem-solving about things weighing heavily on our minds of late.