Sarmyth

Wow that was a blast from the past! Still a bit of a banger too!

That only applies in shit states that allow that wage fuckery. There are several states where the minimum doesnt change based on whether the job receives tips.

This is one of the problems with the argument online. Too many off us have different realities around them. Where I'm at they get a pretty healthy minimum (~$17/h) + tips.

Being a waiter at a decent restaurant is quite lucrative in my area. I don't want to change that for the person, after all, the waiter is getting a cut off every check. It's like a form of profit sharing! However, I'd rather just have the prices on the menu reflect reality and the business handle all the dispersion of pay without me and my feelings getting manipulated for an extra 5% (after the previously established 18% tip standard was deemed too low by people who get tipped that for decades.)

To be fair, that's not the actual alternative for the waiter. The waiter either accepts their income as it is with some people not providing a tip, or they can opt for other employment like the rest of the workforce that isn't tipped. They don't have to sit at home waiting for things to change like helpless puppies.

I'm in California though so we don't have any of that wage fuckery where they can be paid less than minimum wage if tips make up a significant portion of their income. It's $17.55 hour minimum plus tips where I'm at.

I'd really rather see tipping outlawed along with all other obscured fees and just pay what you need to pay to have waiters and charge what you need to charge to have a business transparently printed on the menu.

Yup that's what he said to her alright....

Unfortunately they don't actually state their reasoning. They just state what they told her while trying to reason with them to go to sleep.

You are probably right, but its just an assumption. In their position I would also be attempting to reason with them by reminding them of their existing relationship instead of "No, I don't want to rape you. You cannot consent."

That and they just stay there active, decades after the conflict. There are still minefields from decades old conflicts that kill/injure people today.

It's honestly no worse than dropping bombs on them. They don't have to deal with the explosive shock blowing out their ear drums either. It's way more escapable than sudden explosions happening all around you.

Besides.... if you invade a country you're down with death. A bunch of the soldiers use rape and attack civilians as well, so my concern for their well being dried up a long time ago.

That's actually not the problem with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are banned due to their indiscriminate nature (being blown by the wind) and really the fact that it causes slow deaths over years. It's that it's tantamount to torture (which is also banned).

Blowing people's limbs off is considered A-OK as long as it's not done with land mines.

Eh, that's pretty metal. What I like about it is that it's not some chemical weapon that floats on the air to hiteveryone in the vicinity. You will see where you are hitting clearly because it's like a bright tracer round. And it'll cause more injuries than deaths.

You almost have a sporting chance to get away once it's started compared to the relatively sudden chaos of explosions.

Not a probe to find the perpetrators, just who tattled. Classic.

Sure, if that's how a really popular subreddit pays it's moderators, it's not unreasonable. We just know that isn't what's going on here.

In addition, it would be unreasonable to expect users of a free service to suddenly start paying for it without an extremely huge value boost which there's been no mention of. If anything engagement will certainly go down, further reducing the value.

Eh that sucks. I feel bad for their family.