u/Felinomancy

Can you village, town or city support wheelbarrows? Then it can support wheelchairs.

I get that your fantasy world might have magic and/or steampunk, but that doesn't mean everything needs to be magical and/or steampunk-y.

I mean, take the common stool. Should all stools be magical?

Fix your water supply

Mu nok air ko nok Isley?

lol

1. no

2. don't be accepting. If you can't form the words in your head, then is it really worth to have it out in the open? Am I conversing to a person or an AI?

No, I'm too B40 to get a Civic 😿

PORK SHOP

What do they sell there?

Could somebody ELI5 to me why pork seems to be bigger taboo than other Haram behaviors?

Simple: there's no biological drive to eat pork. Can't say the same about sex.

Sent my beloved Honda for servicing today. +RM700 🙀

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

It's nowhere near as imperialist as Russia flat-out invading people, though.

I agree with you, 100%.

I'm not trying to "both sides"-ing the situation. The "good/bad guys" dichotomy is seldom true in geopolitics, but if I have to simplify it, then at this moment, Russia is the bad - or if you prefer, the worse guy.

tl;dr: for neighbours / allies / partners, better the West than Russia.

Sorry, why are the videos so long? What do you have to talk about that's 1h 40m/2h 33m? It's like the extended edition of LOTR but without the fun.

Fireball can throw hands.

If you know the definition of imperialism and you can definitely say russia is imperialist, but you can't definitely say if NATO is then this is just pointless.

No?

More than one entity can be imperialist. I don't know what your definition of "pointless" is.

You're saying you're not committed enough, yet say if you had the time you'd be able to argue they're imperialism lite.

Yes?

Geopolitics is a complicated subject. I admire the confidence of redditors who think they can fully grasp it without studying it in any meaningful capacity. I have no such arrogance.

Jujst get out of here.

No.

Yes, if I'm not fully committed to a point of view I will be honest enough to say it.

I'm too old to pretend knowing something when I do not.

I guess if I'm motivated enough I could argue that I'm not a fan of the intervention in Afghanistan.

But if I want to argue that NATO is imperialist, I would say that it could be hijacked (or leveraged) to further American/Western interests, which is not always benevolent.

Nah, I'm not thinking of culture at all. My angle would be how NATO could be leveraged to further pursue American (and to a lesser extent, European) interests.

As opposed to your generic, non-sanctified brain rot?

Good for her. The best hope for any country is an energised and involved populace.

I don't know if NATO is imperialist or not. If I have the time, energy and motivation (e.g., someone pays me to), I can probably argue that it is at least imperialism lite.

But what I do know is that in invading Ukraine (and Georgia) to further expand their territory, Russia is imperialistic.

That's the difference between the two entities to me.

Meanwhile, my cats would go, "why would I want a bed when there's a perfectly good patch of floor here?"

I went to a bowling date recently at Berjaya Times Square.

Maybe it's because we went there at night, but... the place has a "dead mall" vibe lah. Which is sad given how it's smack in the middle of BB.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want another T10 place a la Starhill Gallery or TRX, but... BTS looks kinda like the only thing's propping it up are nail salons and crime.

My recent experience using Waze vs. Grab Maps:

Waze: "you want to go to apartment ABC? Okay, it's going to a bit lengthy because we need to drive a few kilometers before making a U-turn. But this is all legal."

Grab: "cross the double line here and shoot straight up to the apartment complex. 'That's illegal'? Mu nok legal ke nok Isley cepat?"

Incidentally, I really like that meme making fun of PAS. Another local meme I like is a picture of a cat with an elderly person, and someone will eventually comment, "habis lah, geran tanah dah tukar nama dia dah."

Outliers who choose to show up in suspicious clothing or bare naked ought to be denied access on grounds of public safety

What "public safety"?

Also, if we're all depending on "own sense of propriety", how do you decide what is or is not "suspicious clothing"? One person's "oppressive clothing" is another's "freedom of expression", how do you decide who is right?

Dress codes exist for all places. Women can't go walking around in public bare-chested (and in a lot of places, neither do men). School children have to wear school uniforms. There are rules for places of worship. Luxury establishments might bar you from entering if you're wearing singlets and selipar jepun. And I'm very sure the courts would demand everyone in attendance to be decently attired.

We as a society are broadly okay with this.

So what's the problem now? How is the very modest requirement in OP's pic unconscionable? What human rights of yours are being violated?

If the only objection you have is, "I don't want anyone else to tell me what is appropriate or not", then that is fine. You have the right to believe that. But that is not an ethical objection. I don't see a civil rights violation here, any more than making school kids wear a uniform at school a human rights issue.

So as I stated in the beginning, I have no objection to your feelings about the dress code. But I'm not supporting it either, because I think it's a matter of "preference", not "rights".

(if you want an example of when dress codes are human rights issues, it will be how women in Saudi Arabia have to be covered up in public. Or how in France, women are forbidden to cover up if they want to. I see both of these as human rights issues).

Didn't even know there was/is a Papuan genocide.

Your thinly disguised straw men arguments

?

You do realise that what I'm saying is, "you are free to believe what you want", right?

I'm not saying, "you believe on extreme or the other". I said, even if you believe one end or the other or anywhere in between, I still support your right to believe what you want."

Where will you stand when one day the government decides one way or another how we're all supposed to dress in all public spaces and mandates it as law?

That already happened. For example public nudity is illegal in Malaysia.

Let me "straw man" you further and assume you mean something like, "what if the government forces everyone to wear a burqa outside?". Then my answer is, "yes, I will oppose that, because that is an unreasonable restriction of civil liberties". I don't have the right to use the postal service; I do have the right to be able to walk outside.

To add to the above, "wearing a burqa" is also a much greater imposition than "wear long skirt or pants".

It benefits no one to turn members of public away for something so trivial as dress code infractions.

True.

It is also true that wearing something considered "appropriate" is also trivial. So why not do it?

A reasonable precaution for those in the military and high government officials.

For the rest of us pipits though, if Mossad wants to spy on us I don't think there's much we can do.