Not all new things cost money. You can walk a new way to the same places. You can find new books at the library or online. You can just do things you already do in a different way, and that can be novelty.
Not all new things cost money. You can walk a new way to the same places. You can find new books at the library or online. You can just do things you already do in a different way, and that can be novelty.
By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)
Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.
All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.
How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.
Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.
Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.
If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.
I can’t believe you would trample on my freedom to extinct an animal like that.
I’m not sure I understand how that applies here or changes what I posted.
I used to as well until I looked into it, which is why I now know way, way more than anyone really needs to (there is… a lot.) Anyway, figured I’d explain just in case. You didn’t seem like you had bad intentions, so thanks for being understanding.
A furry is someone that identifies with anthropomorphic animal characters (or sometimes just animal characteristics). No dressing up required. Now, a lot of the people that go to cons tend to have more money, so you will see more fursuits and such, but most furries do not dress up.
You are right, but a lot of the roots of furry criticism do tend to be queerphobic in origin. It’s just something to recognize.
I’m using kink in a pretty generic way because a lot of the criticisms of furries relate to sex (e.g. beastiality or pedophilia), and thus any depiction of kink (like bondage gear) is used to demonize them that it’s a fetish (and one that is coming for your children.)
There is a significantly higher proportion of LGBTQ+ representation within the furry community than the general populace, and it makes sense why. Fursonas are another way to explore sexual and gender identities in a safe way, and furry communities tend to be pretty accepting places.
This is just my opinion, but I see kink in the furry community criticized the same way I see kink at Pride events criticized.
Currently, my taxes go into destroying homeless encampments and arresting them, so we could probably use that money for housing and feeding them instead.
Feed and house them, can you not read?
If I make a million dollars by exploiting people and give $100,000 to charity, I think that still makes me a monster.
If he’s so smart, why is he dead?
Why does it matter if you’re not a Republican if you espouse their talking points? Does it make you special that you’re not a Republican?
Sorry that you’re either too angry or too dumb to have gleamed that insight. It offered commentary on your logic, that being that you don’t know or don’t care about the inconsistencies, both of which mean debating you is pointless because you’re either an idiot or a bad actor, so why bother?
Lol you all find yourselves special because you are not a “Republican”
Ohh p.s. I’m not Republican
The irony is lost on you.
Bethesda’s goal, as usual, is rent-seeking. They can’t penetrate more markets, so they need to make new ones, and what better way to do this then to hire what amounts to contractors doing gig work. They don’t even have to pay them except in commission, which is a really scummy thing to do.
Some people see this as a way for mod-makers to make money, but mod-makers already have those! Every mod I’ve seen and every modder I’ve talked to has a donation link you can send money to, and the ones who didn’t had organizations and charities you could send your money to instead.
What you’re talking about is something bigger than simple novelty. It kinda sounds like depression, and that’s a lot harder to fight against than breaking routine. I mean, breaking routine helps me a little bit, but it’s certainly not the cure.
But if you want to argue there’s only a limited number of things to do for free, you can spin that the other way, too. There is only a limited number of things to buy. I dunno, that kinda makes me feel better, but I’m weird like that.