“Considers” ≠ “Counts”

“Tom counts a yellow Corvette among his three sportscars” would be a perfectly natural statement in an article where Corvette ownership is relevant. In this article, parenthood of a transgender child is relevant.

By “illegal,” do you mean the player is not allowed to choose the race for their character? Or do you mean the race is outlawed within the setting, i.e. Orcs would have no legal protections and are persecuted by the law?

Yes, architect is betting much worse

“Spicy” isn’t a taste, it’s just a mildly painful chemical irritation. Spicy substances can hurt many sensitive body parts, including the mouth, nose, eyes, anus, and genitals. It’s nothing to do with tastebuds, more to do with thin unprotected membranes in your body being sensitive to chemicals such as capsaicin or allyl isothiocyanate.

deleted by creator

Crackers are crisp and brittle by definition. “Floppy Cracker” is an oxymoron (and potentially a good name for a garage band?).

Most participants in this debate are far too preoccupied with the shape or structure of the sandwich, to the point of neglecting what a sandwich is all about. It’s simple. A sandwich is when you use bread as a handheld base for prepared foods that would otherwise be too messy to eat with your fingers. A tortilla is a flat bread, ergo handheld burritos and soft tacos are sandwiches.

“Then why isn’t pizza an open-faced sandwich?” Because pizza has a crust, not bread. When you take raw dough and bake it along with its toppings or fillings, it may be a pie or a pastry or a pizza or a casserole or some other category I don’t care to quibble over. It’s not a sandwich.

Obviously there are many sub-categories of sandwiches. A dish isn’t necessarily excluded from being a sandwich just because it’s also another type of food.

Well it’s a good thing we’re not talking about a human child, we’re talking about a body of text consisting of several distinct documents that were introduced over a span of more than two centuries. Context is tricky, I know.

I just want to point out that the 11th Amendment isn’t included either; just the first 10, according to the article. The original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It makes the dividing line seem a little less arbitrary that way.

I agree with the points you’ve made, though.

The fact that the sales description lists the Bill of Rights separately from the US Constitution logically implies that “The US Constitution” isn’t meant to include its amendments in the context of the book’s contents.

The writer of the headline wants us to assume that Trump cherry-picked the 13th and 19th amendments to be excluded, when that’s obviously not the case. The 11th through 27th Amendments were all left out.

The only “cherry picking” being done is by the writer of the headline. This Bible doesn’t include Amendments 11 - 27 (everything that came after the Bill of Rights). It’s not advertised to contain those amendments, either. It contains the original Constitution of the United States and it contains the Bill of Rights. The fact that the book description lists the Bill of Rights separately from the US Constitution logically implies that “US Constitution” doesn’t include its amendments in the context of the book’s contents.

The headline suggests that two very specific amendments were omitted in such a way to evoke outrage and paint Trump in a bad light.

I despise Donald Trump and would rather see him in prison than in the White House again, but propaganda is propaganda.

deleted by creator

Ah, so it’s basically soccer, using hands instead of feet, while swimming. Looks like it would be a fun casual sport to play with friends and family (but in a much smaller pool lol).

All right, your enthusiasm has convinced me. I don’t know anything about water polo, but I’ll look up a game on YouTube. Time to broaden my horizons!

I’ll fucken do it again!

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Total Party Kill - i.e. every member of the adventuring party dies.

I’m not sure I follow your meaning.

“Wanting to have sex with someone else who is attractive” is “a normal human emotion,” as the commenter above you acknowledged. I don’t think anyone would deny that there’s a fundamental biological mechanism at work there.

Being outraged that a performer you’ve never met (who has no personal obligation to you) is in a relationship, and then having your outrage justified by an apology? That’s not the same. That’s not just biology. That’s culture. It’s the result of taking the “biological reason” - or “normal human emotion” - and wringing it through a targeted marketing campaign and culture of idolatry designed to cultivate unhealthy parasocial relationships for the sole purpose of extracting profit.

It was just a regular homemade grilled cheese and his wife used three slices instead of two