I would think combative is closer to your connotation and adversarial is judgement neutral.

Rios, sitting in the backseat of the police cruiser, turned his tirade against Officer Alexander Welch, an English-born American citizen, as the lawmaker pointed out the officer’s accent and bizarrely claimed that he doesn’t think “people from England should be arresting Americans.”

“Your country is being overtaken by f–king migrants and refugees, right?” Rios asked, citing the refugee crisis in England.

“You’re arresting me for driving home. But people come into your country and rape your women. And I’m the f–king bad guy? I’m going to fight for the people of England more than you ever would, you little bitch.”

Not in US though

I’m not doubting you, but do you have any sources? I’d like to read more.

My friend who used to work at a ren faire says it’s a lazy overdone joke and the people who do it tend to be dicks.

deleted by creator

Hi, that’s me. I can handle endless heat, but fuck temps under 60.

deleted by creator

I’m just a simple statistican, but I would be more worried about sun exposure, tap water quality, air quality, processed foods and occupational hazards (depending on job) over 3-4 drinks per year.

The better conclusion is “people who drink in moderation have a decreased risk of cancer”, which is different. Causation is hard to prove, especially when we can only ethically do observational studies. It’s likely that people who drink in moderation are more likely to make healthy choices in other areas of their life or have other factors that reduce risk.

I understand your conclusion, but in my experience not many people are advocating for reducing their 1st amendment rights. The majority of my experience with people claiming free speech is when it doesn’t apply. Like it does not protect anyone from being laughed at, ostracized, does not force people to buy goods or services from someone who says wild shit, and no one is required to give them a platform.

People only invoke the feelings of the founders when they either don’t have a stronger argument or are trying to appeal to conservatives. It’s basically religious interpretation at this point - mostly used to manipulate people who don’t know better.

Fuck em. I’ll use nebula.

It’s not a real Nobel Prize, it’s a Bank of Sweden prize and it’s a better reflection of Swedish economic politics than true innovation in the field (probably because economics is more applied philosophy than science).

Some pregnant women get outies in their second or third trimester, so there must be an amount of force that would do the same.