1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sometimes that's a good idea, other times it's not. That's a personal decision for everyone to make. Most people don't believe that every ailment requires medication, but agree that some do. It's up to you to decide where that line is for you.

3
BringTheCat789 3 points ago +3 / -0

Read them carefully.

Without a VPN, your ISP can see the base level domain that you visit, but nothing further (assuming https is used).

So it the latter example, if your concern is the ISP knowing that you view porn at all, then a VPN will be prevent your ISP from seeing that you went to "pornhub(dot)com"

But if you don't care that your ISP sees that you watch porn, but really don't want them to know that you watch interracial tranny porn, then you don't need a VPN, like the former example. Your ISP will see that you went to pornhub(dot)com, and they'll see how much data you streamed from there, but they wont' know what you streamed from there, or the exact URL to the videos you watched. This information is already encrypted as is (https).

But again, anything that the ISP sees can now be seen by the VPN provider when you use it. So if your concern is nobody being able to find out that you watch porn on pornhub(dot)com, a VPN won't do you any good.

EDIT: I reread your response and I think I see where you confusion is:

With https and no VPN, your ISP can see that you went to "https://www.youtube.com" but cannot see that you went specifically to "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHoqIa1TJ9w" That part after the slash is not visible to your ISP as long as https is used. They can only see the base level domain.

3
BringTheCat789 3 points ago +3 / -0

I believe that COVID is real, and is even slightly more deadly than the regular cold/flu, but is wildly blown out of proportion. If you hold this worldview, it seems perfectly reasonable to take additional medicines if you choose. It is completely reasonable to say that you shouldn't be afraid of a virus, but still take dedicated steps to minimize it when you get it.

29
BringTheCat789 29 points ago +29 / -0

Taking medicine, even for a cold, isn't making it out to be a big deal. And fuck anyone who thinks I should suffer through an illness by rejecting modern medicine just so people don't think I'm making a big deal out of the illness.

5
BringTheCat789 5 points ago +5 / -0

This has actually been common advice for some time now, but for some reason over the past couple days a couple news articles have been written about it and now everyone's acting like it's a conspiracy. It doesn't help that the articles are written poorly and don't really explain the situation well, in addition to coming from not trusted sources.

The best thing to do is to get an understanding of what a VPN does and doesn't do, and the pros and cons.

If your concern is your banking passwords being grabbed while you use public wi-fi, you don't need a VPN. This information is already encrypted.

If your concern is your ISP knowing which genre of porn video you watch on pornhub, you don't need a VPN. This information is already encrypted.

If your concern is Facebook reading your messages on Facebook Messenger, you don't need a VPN. They can read these messages whether you use a VPN or not.

If your concern is your ISP knowing that you go to pornhub, defensedistributed, etc. (any domain), then a VPN may be beneficial to you.

If your concern is your ISP seeing the files you torrent, then a VPN may be beneficial to you.

If your concern is websites knowing your rough location, then a VPN may be beneficial to you.

But the biggest thing people need to realize about using a VPN is that it does not completely hide you and what you're doing, it only shifts who has access to it. Anything that the ISP can see when your VPN is turned off, your VPN provider can see when your VPN is turned on. So if you have a reason to distrust your ISP and to trust whichever VPN provider you choose, then go for it, but remember that this information is still available somewhere, it's just a matter of where.

2
BringTheCat789 2 points ago +2 / -0

While globalism may make the virus more dangerous while it evolves to ultimately not be deadly, it doesn't prevent it from evolving to that inevitability. Everyone in the world may have the virus, but the virus will still evolve to not be deadly.

19
BringTheCat789 19 points ago +19 / -0

It's been widely known and common knowledge in the scientific community for decades that viruses evolve to be less deadly, but more communicable. Killing your host is not an evolutionary benefit. It's actually a huge disadvantage. It's far easier to spread if your host stays alive for longer, and spreading is the ultimate evolutionary "goal" of any organism.

But we conveniently forget this knowledge when we're trying to craft a narrative and force people to do shit we want.

6
BringTheCat789 6 points ago +6 / -0

There are many charges. I don't foresee a guilty verdict on every charge. But I could see a guilty verdict on some of the lesser includeds as a "compromise," although still a compromise that destroys this innocent young man's life.

6
BringTheCat789 6 points ago +6 / -0

They filed a written motion for mistrial with prejudice, too. I don't know why they verbally requested a mistrial without prejudice before that was even ruled on.

16
BringTheCat789 16 points ago +16 / -0

They filed a written motion for mistrial with prejudice that is still pending a ruling by the judge.

It is a bit odd that they would open the door for a mistrial without prejudice on the same issue while that is still pending. Especially considering a mistrial without prejudice option is kind of baked in when a judge reviews a motion for a mistrial with prejudice.

What's even more odd is that the prosecution didn't immediately concede and jump on the defense's offer for a mistrial without prejudice. If I were the prosecution, I'd be all over that.

11
BringTheCat789 11 points ago +11 / -0

It seems to me like he really wants the jury to come back with an acquittal verdict, and for obvious reasons. He doesn't want to override the jury when the entire country is watching. If we get an acquittal, it is a better situation for everyone. If we get a guilty verdict, the motion for mistrial will still need to be ruled on and hopefully he has the balls to go through with granting it. These motions don't just go away, unless they become moot.

The defense has a lot of options if we get an unfavorable verdict.

10
BringTheCat789 10 points ago +10 / -0

Battered woman syndrome wouldn't apply to a woman who murders people that just look like her husband.

10
BringTheCat789 10 points ago +10 / -0

Gun laws are not effective at reducing gun crime.

Having a society that is content with not having any guns is effective. Having strict border security that can be used to enforce these guns laws is effective.

If gun laws were effective, Illinois and New York would not be flooded with gun crime. However, since they don't have the latter (allowing guns to come in from other states) and don't have the former, or at least are surrounded by states that really don't have the former, gun crime runs rampant.

The laws themselves are only one piece of the puzzle. Individual states and cities having strict gun laws is the stupidest thing. They're not "setting an example" for others, especially when the numbers just show that they do not work and sets an example of what not to do. We know plain as day that gun laws by individual states and cities do not work, and the leftists will be the quickest to explain exactly why they don't work. So why would they support them? Why would they support taking away freedom from residents of a certain state or city when they know that that particular action applied that particular way will be ineffective? It is bizarre.

This puts aside all the other obvious issues: reducing gun crime really just changes how crime occurs. Would you rather be shot or stabbed? It's a whole lot of effort and reduces freedom, meaning imprisoning otherwise innocent people, for a society that gets splashed with acid instead of shot with lead. Woohoo. Additionally, the whole government takeover thing when the citizens are disarmed.

7
BringTheCat789 7 points ago +7 / -0

The only reason that masks in schools are still an issue is because children can be controlled more easily than adults.

The country is done with masks. It's rare to go anywhere and see a majority of people wearing them. But they'll try to hold onto them and keep them in our lives in any way they can, and one way they can do that is through children.

0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +4 / -4

But also don't forget that you're not going to agree with any other person 100% of the time. We should support people on decisions they make that we agree with, and fight against them on decisions they make that we disagree with.

Seriously, I see people here who will pop up to any good news a bona fide conservative has with "yea, but he did this vaguely shitty thing a while ago, so fuck him." Like DeSantis will come out and announce he's banning Cubans from Florida and they'll be like "yea, but for a moment he actually supported a mask mandate, so fuck him"

8
BringTheCat789 8 points ago +8 / -0

Dude nailed it.

Only thing that would've made it better is if he said "I'm just trying to elevate black voices. I like Dave Chapelle."

13
BringTheCat789 13 points ago +13 / -0

Imagine if this dude was concealed carrying and they saw an actual gun because they lifted up his shirt incidentally while taking his sign or something.

Beyond the ludicrousness of announcing that a stick you just saw originated as a sign with no signs of using it to hurt anyone is a weapon, the idea of announcing loudly because someone simply has a weapon is retarded.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Talking specifically about this video, it's more a demonstration that highlights that these nurses are not following their code of ethics than anything else.

Talking about your weird standard of consent, again, by your logic, a threat of imprisonment or death would also constitute consent. It doesn't.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Whether it's "compliance" or not doesn't make it "consent" in any real usage of the word.

Consenting under duress is not consent at all.

No, I don't want what they offer, I don't want them to take away what I already have. The government didn't "offer" me my freedom. But they are able to take it away.

3
BringTheCat789 3 points ago +3 / -0

They'll respond to this by saying "yea, that's expected; the vaccine doesn't reduce case counts, it's reduced hospitalizations and deaths."

But when you argue that people being unvaccinated then only pose a risk to themselves, they'll argue that unvaccinated people lead to increased spread because the virus lives longer inside of them and there is more of it, and thus has more time and ability to spread to to others.

But they don't grasp that if that were true, then more vaccinated populations would show fewer cases, because even though each individual person vaxxed or unvaxxed is just as likely to contract it, each vaxxed person is less likely to transmit it.

The argument to be made here isn't that the vaccine is ineffective. The argument to be made here is that unvaccinated people are no more likely to transmit COVID-19 than vaccinated people.

13
BringTheCat789 13 points ago +13 / -0

Within leftist circles, they find people who make their entire personality their sex/gender/orientation to be as insufferable as we do, but they won't ever admit it. Often, they'll actively lie to themselves.

In public, they'll side with these crazy people, particularly when it comes to arguing against the other side. But in private, they aren't associating with each other and enjoying each other's companies like friends would. They may talk privately, but the extent of their conversations they get mutual enjoyment out of will be discussing their hatred for the other side.

These people don't want to talk to someone who can only talk about their penis or lack thereof. They don't want to talk to someone who makes them police their own words.

They force themselves, too, however. But this means any and all personal relationships these types have are fake. And that kind of thing is detectable and weighs on a person. You will absolutely know if all of your "friends" really only talk to you because they feel like they won't be "accepting" if they don't.

If we didn't have woke culture and pandering, these people would be shut down explicitly and would be forced to reassess their ways. As it is now, they have the burden of knowing that nobody likes them, but not the understanding of exactly why they are so insufferable, because they're constantly told that what makes them insufferable is actually what makes them unique.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +2 / -1

And people throughout history have also repeatedly made change without literally dying for it.

Whether you expect people to literally die for their cause or not doesn't change the fact that giving in to a threat is not "consent."

view more: Next ›