Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AD
Posts
1
Comments
518
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It's a great idea don't get me wrong, just like having multiple generations living in the same house to split costs. And it is collapsing in front of us, but what if your sibling/ cousin/ friend just expected they could drop their kids off at your house? Especially if you had your own kid(s) to worry about?

    If someone was a stay at home mom or dad, and offered their time to watch kids of friends/family for a very small fee that's one thing, but just expecting someone you know to watch your kids for cheap is not the answer either. It's the EXPECTATION that someone else will watch your kids that I have the issue with.

  • So funny people on the right are being told by the right what the left wants, instead of actually listening to any actual leftist. It's like listening to your divorced dad talk shit about your mom but believing everything he says.

  • If you made it clear you do not like new things I don't know why your spouse thought this would be different. And then on top of it to need to leave the house to cool off (which that itself is fine, but feeling so strongly about it isn't imo) something feels off.

    If I knew my partner didn't like new stuff, and I got her new stuff anyway, I wouldn't take it personally and get very upset about it. Did you talk to your spouse about it yet? Clearly there's a disconnect somewhere but you did nothing wrong by saying you want to return it. Hell, it's not like you returned it already and used that money to buy something else. Or pretended to like it but return it in secret. You're being very open and honest and communicative about your feelings which is good.

    Idk, feels like a pretty big overreaction on your spouses part that warrants a conversation.

  • They wouldn't, this change doesn't really effect them. I meant states could over rule the fed and keep it legal like CA or CO does with weed currently. And then since they took a stand with the shitty alternatives they might as well do it with weed too.

  • The ONLY silver lining is that maybe some states will allow it, like CO and CA on actual weed. And that will encourage them to just make the real stuff legal too.

    It's been 7 years and the world wasn't destroyed by weed addicts.

  • "Everyone needs to be told how to behave so who tells atheists?"

    That seems to be the reasoning there. Except so many priests ignore god's will so they can diddle kids so what's the point of being told how to behave if you can just ignore it anyway?

  • [ARCHIVED] weedtime @walledgarden.xyz

    "What are your plans for the weekend?"