Which is besides the point because Greed is already one of the deadly sins in it's own right.
Perfide
joined 1 year ago
It's less about the blood they suck out and more about their saliva. It's a natural anticoagulant.
Then democratic controlled congress fought for several years to have them be released for no real reason except to force him.
Yes, they did, and he kept refusing to do so, as was his right even if it made him look sus as fuck, especially since his excuse was the lie about being under audit. Only once he was under investigation for fucking fraud were his tax returns actually released, as evidence in the investigations.
Friction is real, it's the "force" of gravity that is an illusion.
MMS doesn't have much bandwidth available and it'll just compress instead of failing to send, so even android to android if you send a long enough HD video the recipient will get compressed garbage. Then, of course, there's the fact any videos sent over MMS from android to an iPhone(and vice versa iirc) becomes compressed garbage no matter how long or HD the video was, but that's more Apple's fault than MMS directly.
Samsung messages app also supports RCS, depending on your carrier, though? It's super fucking buggy and frequently switches back to sms so I still switched to Google messages, but it does technically have it.
Only half of the Zodiacs are inspired from real animals. Gemini is two humans, Virgo is a virgin woman, Libra is a Weighing Scale, Sagittarius is a Centaur with a bow, Capricorn is a Sea Goat, and Aquarius is... a cup of water, I guess?
The fact humans are able to track them is how we know the zodiacs are no longer accurate. According to astrology if you were born on Dec. 1 for example, you're considered a Sagittarius... except you're ACTUALLY a Scorpio, due to the constellations shifting.
Tell me you're from Hexbear without telling me you're from Hexbear.
Benadryl has been a brand in the US for decades longer than Cetirizine has even been in use, and they never changed the active ingredient when new antihistamines became available. Good thing too, cetirizine doesn't do shit for my allergies compared to DPH, and most other allergy med brands use cetirizine.
It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.
Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.
For example, if you say "2+2 is 4" and my response is "NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH", not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.
You wouldn't have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I'd think you're really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.
There is some truth to it, but there's also just the fact that some people's eyes are bad enough that they need glasses to fully function in modern society, but not so bad that they couldn't survive in the wild without them.
Me for example. I need glasses to drive, I can't read street signs otherwise, and I need them at work, but I otherwise usually don't wear them. The only thing better eyesight would meaningfully help me with in the wild is navigation and spotting hidden animals quicker, and even then it'd really only help with snakes. Any other ambush predator I'd be likely to encounter in my region is big enough that spotting it a few seconds sooner wouldn't really help.