He said fiancé not fiancée.
1 Like
This guy’s great! From the article:
The unconventional couple got engaged in December 2019, when the bald, blue-eyed hunk — who described himself as a “sexy maniac” — popped the question.
and
He told the Daily Star that the wedding was delayed again after he was attacked during a transgender rally in the Kazakh city of Almaty on Oct. 31, when he suffered a concussion and a broken nose after dressing as a woman for the event.
1 Like
Why does people doing their civic duty = terrified to you?
Yeah I wanna minimize my odds of catching it and passing it to a couple of others, amongst whom one might die along the chain of transmission. This is “fear” to you?
It’s not called fear. It’s called math.
3 Likes
He’s an edgelord.
2 Likes
I don’t understand edgelords.
Maybe I need to use Asian jokes to get through.
You know why Chinese people understand exponential growth so well? Because we’re all born knowing how to play mahjong.
1 Tai: $ 4
2 Tai: $ 8
3 Tai: $ 16
4 Tai: $ 32
5 Tai: $ 64
Tai = something like points. You don’t set a limit, see how much you’ll lose when one fucker gets 18 Tai.
3 Likes
There’s also a little thing like keeping the R0 under 1, which has a lot to do with global economics as much as math but it’s probably hell of a lot too complicated to explain here.
Let me try to explain it in the simplest terms possible:
You’ll lose to China.
1 Like
It’s too uncomfortable to think about. Can’t have that.
1 Like
I thought math was a universal language. Seems like it’s a different universe some people live in.
That assumes you can speak the language
1 Like
Living in an alternate universe has become very easy. Don’t like math, facts, etc? Come on over to Newsmaxx or Parlor or at least Fox! They’ll tell you what you want to hear and ignore those things you don’t. It’s like Mountain Dew and Cheetos for your brain.
1 Like
Good point. Looks like it’s red crayon time:
China is Asshole!
You’ll all LOSE to Asshole!
1 Like
Bro you are months behind.
@Aragorn already gave us the lily pad on a pond example. China has a larger pond.
Solution - preemptive nuclear strlke.
On a serious note, tests of blood bank samples showing covid in US months before thought.
2 Likes
I tried that on my brother. He couldn’t understand it until I used the mahjong metaphor so different strokes for different folks, I guess.
China did legitimately control the situation with means that even I won’t accept where I live, though.
At this point, I don’t care anymore. I’m not from China nor the US and there’s nothing I can find in International Law that can lead to any reparations being paid so I’m not even gonna bother thinking about this.
To be honest, l just jumped into thread if that is what was being discussed.
I was reading how the virus was moving into the country unknown and of course by the millions of possible carriers. I have maintained from the start it’s a pandemic, but even saying that cast a person a trumpet or whatever.
Don’t think there isn’t some stupidity going on though. My region has 1.5% of Texas population but 5% of the hospitalizations. But let’s all gather in close groups and drink out of the same cup…
Had an invitation today for a Christmas party with 40 people who are old…geez wake up.
4 Likes
I think we all agree on the subject, actually. There are only 2 other reasons why I don’t think someone would.
-
Denial or can’t do math good. The former would be the real indication of “fear” from a psychological perspective.
-
Want to bring about herd immunity. That would be a reasonable subject to discuss but the current evidence shows it’s really not quite feasible to expect it to occur naturally without causing harm to people more susceptible to the virus because of the time it would take to occur.
For point 2, the irony is that if one REALLY wanted expedite this so it occurs within a reasonable timeframe whilst keeping the susceptible population relatively safe, it would take a really centralized government movement with significant overreach to make it happen.
1 Like
Very interesting. I had not read about that. Thanks for the tip!
Damn. I don’t believe in being scared, but come on guys, that Christmas party idea is just asking for bad luck 
.
My cousins were talking about trying to do an extended family Christmas and came up with two options: either delay it to early next year and see how things stand or everyone go out and try to get covid right now so the isolation period is over by Christmas.
Somebody replied, “We’re working on getting covid…Carter has strep and an ear infection. Just waiting now for the covid test and flu results. If he’s positive we’re licking his face until we all get it.”
So there’s that.
I was afraid you were going to take this stand. Because this case has not yet gone to court and itself been determined unconstitutional, doesn’t mean that Cuomo and DeBlasio are not violating it. I gave ample examples of similar type situations that have been ruled unconstitutional. Your burden of proof is set so that only once this particular situation gets settled by the court, then will you agree it’s unconstitutional. The law functions greatly on precedent. These are the precedents that say, this now, what they are doing in NY is unconstitutional.
Or are you arguing on behalf of Cuomo and DeBlasio instituting these restrictions that are killing off peoples livelihoods? If you can go a block and a half away and get a burger, but these guys are closed due to some imaginary line designated by the governor, this ain’t and has nothing to do with “covid protection”. Unless your daft enough to believe the virus cannot travel a block and an half.
These precedents state that covid restrictions, even when done in good faith, cannot and do not supersede the federal law, especially the core laws that govern our nation. They were not subjected to specific circumstances, these rights “shall not be infringed”.
No. PLEASE read my last post again.
Your original post was about a NYC incident. When I asked you what you meant by unconstitutional for this situation, you said something about right to peaceably assemble and equal application of law.
I replied that the essence of the decision was a temporary ruling and was made NOT on the basis that any limiting order is unconstitutional and NOT on the basis that mayors and governors are disallowed from zoning areas at different risk with different restrictions. The temporary ruling (should call it a stay) was instead on the basis that they found it discriminatory against worship houses in the SAME ZONE as other restricted essential businesses.
Your last post was not about New York AT ALL. Instead you posted a bunch of stuff from entirely different states that had nothing to do with the situation you originally posted.
If you want to talk about NYC, don’t bring other states into this. As I said they’re different states, cases, circumstances, legal questions.
Your last reply was no better because
I don’t want to talk about other states when you bring up a specific state. And in addition you don’t know what my burden of proof is set at. You’re ASSUMING again.
I agree that the rule is mostly dumb. However, the SCOTUS did not rule against them on this basis. At all.
1 Like
Yeah it’s unreal how many business as usual people we have. We’re heading towards 300,000 deaths and people just don’t get it.
1 Like