C'mon Maryland, join the cool states club
Random News Article Discussion
-
-
That response turned ME into a lustful cockmonster
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19508906
So the antarctic is melting rapidly, but is that really a bad thing? (who cares about Spain) I wonder how much longer it will take before we can get a better prediction at what is going to happen as a result with currents and climate worldwide.
-
http://weburbanist.com/2012/09/04/abandoned-walmart-is-now-americas-largest-library/
Just thought this was funny and awesome at the same time.
-
Yet another top al-Qaeda member meets Mr. Drone.
-
LOL–Mr. Kluwe responded to criticism of his word choices thusly:
[hide]
First off, let me say thank you to all the people that commented on my letter to Emmett C. Burns Jr. You all give me great hope for the human race; that one day we can rise up past the petty differences that divide us and realize we’re all in this together. Perhaps our children won’t look back on our stewardship with regret.
Secondly, I heard from quite a few sources (including my dad) that the letter would have been more powerful and delivered the message better without the swearing. That those who would refute the point could seize upon my colorful insults to dismiss the main thrust as little more than childish antics and egotistical displays of temper.
Bollocks.
The swearing is there for a reason. What Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote, what I responded to, was far more disgusting and foul minded than any simple scatological reference or genital mashup. His words degrade the very essence of the English language with their barely hidden venom and intolerant hate; drag it screaming into the muck of iniquity by wrapping a mantle of seeming reasonableness around corruption and control; masquerade as discourse while screaming their very lie to any Heaven you care to name – I could go on.
My words? My words are a litmus test for those that would see the truth of a message rather than the package it’s delivered in. I won’t lie, it’s also because I personally find them entertaining to write and read (as do a large amount of other people), but those who would argue that my message means nothing simply because I’m referencing a portion of the male anatomy would never have accepted it anyway. They would have used other excuses, excuses like “Oh he’s just a punter”, or “What do you know, you just play football”, or “No one cares what you think you fag”.
No, my words are meant for those that might be on the fence, those that are initially drawn in due to shock, or laughter, or outrage, but then look at what lies beneath, the truth of the matter. Them I might reach, might offer a quick lightbulb flicker of “Ohhh, so that’s what’s wrong with that argument”. But those who don’t look, who don’t question, who happily treat the symptoms and not the disease – isn’t that the very problem with our politics today? No one is interested in what lies hidden in plain sight beneath what’s said; the glossy dung ball of intolerance and hate buffed to a lustrous gleam by rhetoric and catchphrases.
So here is my gift to you. The exact same letter, but without the oh so naughty words that only mean what we allow them to mean. What will your excuse be this time?
Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of the United States government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees”, more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a BEAUTIFULLY UNIQUE SPARKLEPONY. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-bogglingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. SAD PUPPY DOG EYES hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.
2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” DISAPPOINTED LEMUR FACE WITH SOLITARY TEAR TRICKLING DOWN TO CHIN. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a ten for “beautiful oppressionism”).
3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about DANCING CHUBTOAD? “ALACK AND ALAS MY TOP HAT HAS FALLEN. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that DELICIOUS STATE FAIR HOTDOG!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (unlikely, gay people enjoy watching football too)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero affect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful FROLICKING OSTRICH. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90% of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth SLIDE WHISTLE TO E FLAT you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.
Sincerely,
Chris Kluwep.s. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. UNFORTUNATELY PHALLIC HEDGE SCULPTURE.
[/hide]
I think I have developed a little crush on him… LOL
-
I know I'm swooning
-
Evidence of a U.S. Coverup of Soviet War Crimes
On Monday, the U.S. National Archive released 1,000 declassified documents pertaining to the 1940 massacre of 22,000 Poles by the Soviet Union. The Cliffs Notes version? America's coverup of the infamous Katyn Massacre was more extensive than previously thought.
For years, Poles and Polish-Americans have alleged that the U.S. government suppressed information about the Soviet Union's guilt in the World War II-era murders, which were aimed at killing off Poland's military and intellectual elite. As recently as 1992, the State Department said it "lacked irrefutable evidence" in the early 1950s to substantiate claims that the USSR, not Nazi Germany, carried out the crimes. But today's documents show the concrete proof U.S. officials had in their hands in the 1940s regarding the Soviet Union's guilt.
You can see all of the newly-released documents and maps at the National Archives site here. The AP's Vanessa Gera and Randy Herschaft got an early peek at the documents and have zeroed in on the the most surprising revelation: Secret codes sent by two American POWs to the U.S. in 1943 acknowledging evidence of rotting corpses in a state of advanced decay. In essence, "proof that the killers could not have been the Nazis who had only recently occupied the area."
-
Evidence of a U.S. Coverup of Soviet War Crimes
I was going to post that and point a smug finger of criticism till I noticed the name churchill crop up. Shame on us all. Read up enough and it doesn't take long till you see the world through scum tinted glasses.
-
I don't think a scholarly soul has doubted for a second the Sovet's did Katyn since forever, so this isn't really as shocking as it may seem. It wasn't a particularly controversial controversy.
-
China deploys two warships after Tokyo announces disputed island purchase
China deployed two navy vessels and launched a furious verbal assault on Japan after Tokyo announced it had ‘bought’ a group of islands disputed by the two countries in the East China Sea.
Uotsuri Island, one of disputed Senkaku islands in the East China SeaOn Tuesday morning Osamu Fujimura, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, confirmed his country had agreed to purchase the islands, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, from a Japanese family it claims owns them.
Media reports in Japan said the government would pay a total of 2.05 billion yen (£16.4 million) for the islands and that the transfer of their ownership would be completed by the end of this month.
Simultaneously, China’s state-controlled news agency Xinhua reported that two Chinese surveillance vessels had arrived in the region on Tuesday to “assert the country’s sovereignty”. Japanese media said the Japanese Coast Guard was monitoring the vessels.
Japan’s move to “nationalise” the disputed islands escalated a simmering and long-standing feud between the two nations over the territory, which is administered by Japan but also claimed by China and Taiwan.
In a statement issued on Monday, after Japan confirmed plans to buy the islands, China’s foreign ministry warned Tokyo would have to “bear all serious consequences”.“Long gone are the days when the Chinese nation was subject to bullying and humiliation from others. The Chinese government will not sit idly by watching its territorial sovereignty being infringed upon,” it said.
The statement said Japan’s “so-called ‘purchase’” was “a gross violation of China’s sovereignty over its own territory and is highly offensive to the 1.3 billion Chinese people.”
“It seriously tramples on historical facts and international jurisprudence. The Chinese government and people express firm opposition to and strong protest against the Japanese move,” the statement added describing the move as “totally illegal and invalid”.
On Monday’s China’s prime-minister Wen Jiabao said his country would “never yield an inch” over the islands.
Speaking in Tokyo on Tuesday, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Osamu Fujimura, told reporters: “We certainly do not wish the issue to affect our diplomatic relations with China and it is important to resolve any misunderstanding or miscommunication.”
But a strongly-worded editorial in China’s state-controlled Global Times said “the Sino-Japanese relationship will unavoidably deteriorate.”
The Global Times said that Beijing could not rule out a possible “confrontation between China and the US-Japan alliance”. “China should be prepared for the worst,” it said.
Japan’s Tuesday announcement also drew a bellicose response on the internet with thousands messages posted on social media.
“What I most want now is to hear the bugle call of the People’s Liberation Army,” wrote ‘Green Tea Teacher’ on the Tencent microblogging site. “It is the most beautiful sound.”
Another user sounded a more cautious note. “What can we do? Well, I'll try not buying Japanese goods in the future, at the most.”
The mosaic of rival territorial claims in the South China Sea has become Asia's worst potential military flashpointhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl…-purchase.html
Holy shit!
-
The Senkaku Islands have long been a point of contention - it looks now like that point has reached boiling.
This has been simmering in the background for a long while, with protests, prodding, and slights on both sides.
Wonder what'll happen. -
Chinas acting like a big baby again. The islands were legitimatly sold to japan which could have been available to china as well. Sending warships and trying to get them to fold through threats wont solve it but just start an international chrisis. Can we just go to war with china already?
-
What is it on those islands that is worth going to war for? Oil?
-
What is it on those islands that is worth going to war for? Oil?
Oil reserves are a possibility around some of them, but nothing definite. It's really more a case where China says that they claimed them a long time ago, lost them to Japan in a war, and claims that Japan was supposed to have returned them after the war because of the treaty with the United States ending the Second World War. Japan, on the other hand, says that they were never settled by the Chinese in the first place, that they were not affected by said treat, and China never disputed ownership up until geologists said that they might have oil reserves around them.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
I effing love it when fucking China starts going on about the inviolability of territorial sovereignity, I fucking love it !
-
Can we just go to war with china already?
Riiiight… yeah lets just go war against China, that sound bloody great idea indeed! Winner of the war; Cockroaches.
-
-
Smudger makes racist Chinese jokes in this thread, Smudger makes racist Mexican jokes in another thread. Smudger feels good about himself. ;-)
There's a great lighthearted vibe around here, because no matter how serious we might get, we're all together because of some magical pirate.
-
Smudger makes racist Chinese jokes in this thread, Smudger makes racist Mexican jokes in another thread. Smudger feels good about himself. ;-)
Haha what I said isn't racist. Joking with gueta about Mexico is just a joke between us just as he and many others do about England. You don't see me flying off the handle and branding someone a racist for silly humor when the English stereotype is mentioned. It's usually far from the truth but still a joke and not something cutting. If I was going to be racist or just be downright horrible I would, but as I said its not me and just a joke. The only reason you are so uptight about it is because of shit you've suffered. I can understand why you are this way but don't press it onto other people to this extent. Their is a difference between a joke and something obviously evil, and most people that I'm on the level with get this without question.
Sheesh silence you should at least try to know me before casting the first stone.
The only thing I can say is that we've learnt from the past that we are all from different corners of the world, and as such can take things differently. If someone is offended I'm more than willing to apologize and try and make it right. But at the same time people including yourself shouldn't think the worst and just laugh off what is most likely just banter.
-
-snip-
Wow, someone gets flak for being "butthurt", and their username isn't TheCrystalShip.
-
Silence gets a rise out of Smudger.
Silence feels good about himself. ;-)
-
What is it on those islands that is worth going to war for? Oil?
Whether or not there is oil or other valuable natural resources is pure speculation. It's important to realize that while the islands themselves likely have little value, it's the national ownership of the surrounding sea that is of real importance.
This isn't the only case of island bickering China is involved in. There are the Spratly Islands dispute with 5 other nations, all of which China claims complete ownership. China also claims dominion on the uninhabited Okinotori Islands which Japan had since claimed territorial ownership of. Sino-Filipino relations are also at a low ebb due to China's claims of submerged sea territory or the current Phillipine territory of the Scarborough Shoal and Macclesfield Bank. China also has a precedent to waging a minor war against the Vietnamese in 1974 over the Parcel Islands, of which they won complete control and Vietnam still disputes.
Anti-Japanese sentiments run very strong in China and conceding any disputed territory, no matter how otherwise insignificant, to the Japanese would damage national pride. Whether a war would actually be waged is another story. Japan appears to have officially annexed/incorporated the islands as Japanese territory, yet China considers the act illegal and goes through fairly humorous lengths to treat them like they were always part of China including constant press coverage and new weather coverage that started this week without taking the step of possessing them outright. I kind of doubt military force will be used, though.
-
I can't understand what you are saying.
And while I'm at it lets laugh at china and throw out a few stereotypes.
Smudger shut up.
-
Man, it's election day here and it's almost as exciting as two years ago!
-
Man, it's election day here and it's almost as exciting as two years ago!
Didn't the polls close couple of hours ago.
It was exciting, I agree with that. I hope Samson gets his 41 seats, I wanna see what he's capable of as PM.
Seeking infinity, with all my affinities.
Finding truth, like a falling fruit, my ultimate finality.
Inside my being, the outside, all things; the finite leads the way.
-
Didn't the polls close couple of hours ago.
It was exciting, I agree with that. I hope Samson gets his 41 seats, I wanna see what he's capable of as PM.
They went back to voting by hand instead of computers a couple years ago, so it takes a bit longer to count lol. Currently 60% of the votes have been counted.
-
Oil reserves are a possibility around some of them, but nothing definite. It's really more a case where China says that they claimed them a long time ago, lost them to Japan in a war, and claims that Japan was supposed to have returned them after the war because of the treaty with the United States ending the Second World War. Japan, on the other hand, says that they were never settled by the Chinese in the first place, that they were not affected by said treat, and China never disputed ownership up until geologists said that they might have oil reserves around them.
Yeah, that's almost the entire story in nutshell.
In the 1800s, China didn't give a RAT about that spec of islands. I mean, it's pile of hardly habitable rocks.
Japan claimed ownership around 1895, and there were no voices raised about it at all.At the end of WWII, Japan lost the islands to United States. US first asked if China is interested, and they said no.
US returned the islands to Japan in the 1971.Here's where the mess starts.
In the early 70s, an Internationl survey of the islands revealed a possible massive stash of natural resource in that area. Gas, Oil, etc.
As soon as this news broke, within the year, China disputed the onwership of the islands.
They dug up a 14th century Chinese dynasty map that showed the island on the map, thus "since ancient dynasty had it on the map, clearly they owned it. Meaning, we own that island."Nevermind the fact that dynasty doesn't exist anymore, and PRC government only came into existence with the Communist uprising… and the fact they didn't give two shits about the islands for 80 years.
National ownership my ass, it's all about the resources.
-
@Monkey:
Smudger shut up.
took the words right out of my mouth
-
New York Soda Ban Approved: Board Of Health OKs Limiting Sale Of Large-Sized, Sugary Drinks
NEW YORK CITY — Say goodbye to venti Frappuccinos, gallon movie theater slurpees and big sodas.
The city's Board of Health approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on large sugar-sweetened drinks at its monthly meeting Thursday morning. Nine members voted for it, and one abstained.
Under the plan, all restaurants, fast-food joints, delis, movie theaters, sports stadiums and even food carts will be barred from selling sugar-sweetened drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.
The limits will not apply to drinks sold in grocery stores, diet sodas, drinks that are more than 70-percent fruit juice, or that contain alcohol.
I rarely ever drink soda, but this ban is so dumb. The government doesn't need to babysit people like that. They should be able to choose for themselves, even if they choose the unhealthy option. Want people to stop overdrinking soda? There are saner options.
-
I rarely ever drink soda, but this ban is so dumb. The government doesn't need to babysit people like that. They should be able to choose for themselves, even if they choose the unhealthy option. Want people to stop overdrinking soda? There are saner options.
Selling that large a soda is similar to selling poison imo. What is a saner option? I can't even see how people may benefit from a soda that large.
-
Selling that large a soda is similar to selling poison imo. What is a saner option? I can't even see how people may benefit from a soda that large.
No one would benefit from it. Flat out banning it would be dumb though, because people should still have the option to freely choose to drink it or not. They could always tax it/raise prices, which is the main argument I've been seeing on this issue. It's not like this ban will stop people from drinking soda anyways - they'll just buy more or get refills. Let the people have their soda, it's their own fault if they get fat or rot their teeth or whatever. You can't just tell people what they can't drink. Want them to drink better? Put effort into educating them.
-
The government doesn't need to babysit people like that.
Babies need a babysitter. It's as simple as that.
Seeking infinity, with all my affinities.
Finding truth, like a falling fruit, my ultimate finality.
Inside my being, the outside, all things; the finite leads the way.
-
-
Selling that large a soda is similar to selling poison imo. What is a saner option? I can't even see how people may benefit from a soda that large.
The primary benefit from them is that they're cheaper and more manageable than buying two drinks of a smaller size; this whole thing really started off with people like construction workers, truck drivers, and other people who needed a drink size large enough to last all day and just migrated over to the general population.
This sort of ban just won't work though for a long lists of reasons. Chief among them is the simple fact that too many places are exempt from the ban for it to ever really work in the first place, but others include: people will just get around it by buying multiple drinks or using the free refills common to most places anyway (even the places that don't probably will soon since it'll be a good way to lure people in), people can just go outside the city limits to buy them, and the public perception of it being nanny-statism.
Banning smoking all over the place hasn't really dented the number of smokers in this country; the only thing that has really worked at all is jacking up taxes to the point that buying them becomes a burden. I don't think this will work any better.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
Well now.
Good guy soda inventor made a great discovery!
People think it's great too.
Business man makes great amounts of money!
People start becoming great in mass.
Business man is to answer the great demand!
People get great cups.
Media guy says: Is soda that great ?
Doctor says: No.
Government daddy says: It's not that great.
Well you know, you were given a great thing and you used it to get out of proportion! Shame on you and you get a slightly smaller treat.Fat guy says: Damn ! I'm fat. I should have gotten a better education!
Business guy says: You can't get an education if you're poor and buy soda all the time.
Steve Jobs says: What? I quit College, I'm not poor and I'm not fat.
Bill Gates says: That means you're well raised.
Fat guy says: Oh so I'm fat and stupid.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says: There's many ways to get fat. And yes one of them is being stupid.
Government daddy says: Schwarzenegger is right, and one of the great ways of fattening is big sodas. It's also just quite bad for you in general. That's why we ban the big soda. It's because we don't want to raise or babysit people. We just ban the thing. -
The primary benefit from them is that they're cheaper and more manageable than buying two drinks of a smaller size; this whole thing really started off with people like construction workers, truck drivers, and other people who needed a drink size large enough to last all day and just migrated over to the general population.
This sort of ban just won't work though for a long lists of reasons. Chief among them is the simple fact that too many places are exempt from the ban for it to ever really work in the first place, but others include: people will just get around it by buying multiple drinks or using the free refills common to most places anyway (even the places that don't probably will soon since it'll be a good way to lure people in), people can just go outside the city limits to buy them, and the public perception of it being nanny-statism.
Banning smoking all over the place hasn't really dented the number of smokers in this country; the only thing that has really worked at all is jacking up taxes to the point that buying them becomes a burden. I don't think this will work any better.
Banning smoking in restauraunts and bars owns though. Partly because you know they aren't second hand dens, and also because that sort of thing is a huge health risks for employees.
-
Fat guy says: Oh so I'm fat and stupid.
That's another problem: just about everybody who does support the ban always, always resorts to snarky, condescending insults that make them look like colossal jackasses.
That entire post of yours makes me want to go out and buy the largest, most insanely unreasonably sized cup of Coke humanly possible just out of spite and I don't even drink caffeine or any kind of soft drink besides Diet 7UP.
@Monkey:
Banning smoking in restauraunts and bars owns though. Partly because you know they aren't second hand dens, and also because that sort of thing is a huge health risks for employees.
The negative side-effects of second-hand smoke are well documented though while a person lugging around a oil barrel-sized soft drink doesn't pose quite the same potential risks or even the relatively minor annoyances like making your clothes stink and your food taste like cigarettes. I've yet to have a meal ruined because the guy next to me was drinking a coke, but I've had plenty of them ruined over the years because some idiot near me had a nicotine addiction.
-
I just wish opponents wouldn't make stupidly overdramatic movie theater previews protesting the ban
"We don't let Bloomberg control X, Y, and Z: WHY SHOULD WE LET HIM TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOM FOR THIS!?"
Of all the issues? This?
-
US identifies anti-Muslim filmmaker
http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=757261&affid=100055
its bad enough the world is in a sad mess. now we have guys like him to make it worst.
-
Well, he's a douchebag, yeah.
But that doesn't excuse the barbaric uncivilized rioters attacking US embassy around the world.
Let's be clear here. They are violently protesting the fact that we do not have a law prohibiting offending religions.
That in itself is a challenge to the foundation of freedom of expression and speech.Just because the man is a scumbag and a douchebag, doesn't mean we should give in to the idea of making exclusion to the foundation of our rule.
-
Well, he's a douchebag, yeah.
But that doesn't excuse the barbaric uncivilized rioters attacking US embassy around the world.
Let's be clear here. They are violently protesting the fact that we do not have a law prohibiting offending religions.
That in itself is a challenge to the foundation of freedom of expression and speech.Just because the man is a scumbag and a douchebag, doesn't mean we should give in to the idea of making exclusion to the foundation of our rule.
Barbaric? Uncivilized? Man you are on your horse today.
And anyway they are the exception: not the rule.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer
There's a great lighthearted vibe around here, because no matter how serious we might get, we're all together because of some magical pirate.
-
Well in his defence he said rioters and not people.
Those killers and fanatics do not realize they are the ones that insult and harm the prophet and the religion the most.
-
Barbaric? Uncivilized? Man you are on your horse today.
And anyway they are the exception: not the rule.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer
Uh, Silence?
How are rioting mobs demolishing establishmets and endangering lives of people not "barbaric and uncivilized"?
I'm not talking about the arabic population in general. I'm talking about those who are violently attacking the embassy.
I am talking about the exception.So tell me… what horse?
-
Oh– Oh! ... Is that...?
Here I thought we were making facile, intellectually easy strawman arguments based on misinterpreting things people didn't say.
My bad. Just a misunderstanding!
There's a great lighthearted vibe around here, because no matter how serious we might get, we're all together because of some magical pirate.
-
I know where you're going with that, but there's a huge difference between statement clearly stating (insert group of people) and statement that doesn't address any.
-
Oh– Oh! ... Is that...?
Here I thought we were making facile, intellectually easy strawman arguments based on misinterpreting things people didn't say.
My bad. Just a misunderstanding!
I'm on Aohige's side here, I mean if what he said was really offensive pretty sure Mugiwara no Ice would have been mad. But nah.
-
Silence is just refering to argument elsewhere.
It just looks weird without the context, it's a deserved criticism on completely unrelated subject.Senseless aggression is terrible, and the instigator is a grade-A asshat, but unfortunately as a civilized society, we gotta protect his rights.
Else we be next. :sad:
