ideonek

That’s becouse monopoly was naver intended as a “game”. It was an educational tool that demonstrates how life can suck in capitalism without checks and balances. And now it’s a defoult mindless gift to buy to your friend because everyihing you know about them is that they like whatever new IP is slapped on the cover. If the monopoly game was alive it would beg you you kill it for what it became.

AaaaasaaaaaaAaaAaAaaaaaaAaaaaaaAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa!!!

“When someone show you who they really are, you should believe them”.

Is the “lethal injection for the homeless people” guy fired yet?

Disgusting.

Silent part of this abhorrent argument is that as long as at least one Palestinian live, there is no certainty that Hamas was completly destroyed.

1. He quoted the law as a contargument to someone qouting “love the neighbor”. He didn’t explicitly say that this is how it should be, but he but it refered to both as “God’s Perfect Law” and was “I’m-just-saying” it.

https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1821106332114173&vanity=frank.wallace.14

Yep, those are all great responses. I learned a lot.

Funwise, it seems like a good solution would be “failure… but!” approach.

So the player have at least some reward for doing the best they can even if it’s not enought to clear the chalange completely.

Ok, but if the 20 doesn’t succed, why did you let them roll in the first place?

In the near future, when somome mix it with the plots of US economy tanking, can you please tag me? I have a few people to sent it to.

Preaty please, go fuck yourself.

I think there is a pottential in personalized “Deck of Many Things” that can be achived in many ways depending in your resources. It’s infamous tarot-like item with (usualy) 13 cards like jester, moon, scull. You can commission things, draw things, write short poems or use photos from shared moments that somehow relate to that. Or do the drowning of the cats in different roles. You can buy blank cards with fancy backs, you can cut them out of cardboard… There is a potential there I think.

Well, isn’t this always true to the degree?

But I’m not arguing “innocent until” part. I’m arguing what constitute “proven guilty”. Is there a number of testimonies that should be counted as proof?

You dogged the theoretical question. Is testimony of 100% people enough? Does at ANY point testimonies become more than "accusation alone?

(btw it’s not “until proven guilty” it’s “until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”.)

Let’s make this thought experiment. Is someone raped ALL the people beside the judge. But did this all 1-by-1 without witnesses. And they all coming forward. Should the judge sentence him on the “testimony alone”?

It really feels like saying “no” would mean that the system is not working in a big way. Saying “yes” on other means that there is a number of people cumming forward that should be considered a credible evidence., right?

Well, unless you’re not white. Then the court will be very happy to sentence you based on the witness testimony alone. Self-admission of guilt taken after 14 straight hours of interrogation will also work.

He was probably physically assaulted with a brick-thick file of indisputable photo evidence of all horrible thing he did with Epstein.

Dude… I think you’re already there.

Becoming? You have army on the streets and people sentenced without trial. You don’t have access to basic accommodations like maternity leave. You run away from ambulances… What else do you need?

No, son-son. Have one with Lois.