I like to think of it like a Mad Cow or Kuru, you can’t eat your own species’s brains or you could get a super lethal, contagious prion disease.
I like to think of it like a Mad Cow or Kuru, you can’t eat your own species’s brains or you could get a super lethal, contagious prion disease.
How could selling something you naturally produce be a scam? I can see how easily you could get ripped off on the price, but in the end you’re still making money and automatically replacing the plasma lost. Even if they’re not actually using the plasma for their stated purpose, I’d still argue the donator is not the one getting scammed. I guess it really comes down to your definition of “scam”.
That meme sucked
I have a hard-on for accurate language, I don’t give a shit what happens to the imaginary people in the pickup truck.
I don’t care either way, I was responding to a different person who said they couldn’t be punished because it was street-legal but in “the wrong place.” I was simply pointing out that street-legal-but-in-the-wrong-place is the same as not-street-legal.
Street-legal, bridge-legal, who gives a shit. The point is, they drove it illegally and should be able to be punished accordingly. The make and model are irrelevant.
If it’s overweight, it’s not street legal.
Relative to the lower 48, Hawaii looks huge!
It’s not that one’s better than the other, it’s just that the idiom was originally one way (“couldn’t”), and then everyone kept saying it wrong until it sounded right, just like with “literally.” Logically, you’re argument is unsound and historically incorrect, but trying to argue against the evolution of language is futile and ultimately regressive. So you say it however you want, old idioms are lame anyway.
How is “stop worrying about them, they’re pointless” not an opinion on the matter of fingerprint sensors? And how do you know I’m not in high school?
No scanner at all is the cheapest and it’s just as efficient. I don’t use mine so, if it has to have one, I really don’t care where it goes.
I’m more concerned with the drug dealers advertising on TV.
Ok, but the output of the aggregator can still be analyzed for bias, right? How often does “Business Insider* yahoo” aggregate right-wing bullshit vs left-wing bullshit vs actual apolitical truth? Knowing the source’s source doesn’t change the veracity of the article, only the contents of the article affect that.
It’s Yahoo, the source is Yahoo. You don’t even have to click it, it says it right beneath the title. Stupid bot.
If only humans could find some way to control the size of firetrucks…
I don’t need to, I’m not accusing you of slander. 😉
It’s not slander if you can’t prove it’s not true.
You can acquire it through direct contact, i.e. consuming prion-disease-contaminated meat. What would you call it?