I’m confused how you don’t see the logic. It says right there.

He claims that the lost “potential population” from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

It’s entirely idiotic, but it’s not hard to understand?

I’m just confused because they already must have had a lot of money. How much you need?

It’s most likely that dogs/wolves just kept eating our waste, staying close to us, and after initial fights humans noticed the dogs/wolves are not being a threat, thus letting them do their thing and observing them.

Then humans eventually figured out that by observing dogs and their reactions, they could see if dogs smelled/heard something which they couldn’t. And then started to exploit that.

I’m not sure you have a case if the percentage of women on maternity leave in the fired group is roughly the same as in the non-fired group.

If it isn’t illegal to fire people taking maternity leave specifically, which I don’t think it is in the US, you’re out of luck. The only illegal thing is firing people because of maternity leave. Since there was a mass layoff, it can easily be argued that the maternity leave was not the reason.

The US needs better labor laws, and thus unions. An individual can’t do anything against it.

Looking at the Steam store page of this game doesn’t make me want to play this at all. This is just a gut reaction and I don’t know why I feel like this, and I don’t want to spend the time to try and figure it out. But there must be something wrong with the game or the presentation of it.

She won’t let a licensed therapist help her, so no, they also can’t do anything.

What exactly does it matter to be stuck with old emojis? Why is it important for them to be perfectly uniform?

Btw, if you look at the thread in question where you were called out for being wrong, all the comments name-calling and bullying you were removed. Moderation doesn’t work instantly.

Found a woman that is exactly as weird and different as I am, which I thought was impossible, I was already fine with staying romantically alone my whole life :)

There’s definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.

For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn’t need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.

A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn’t work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn’t be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.

If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it’ll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.

So no, you aren’t necessarily “not fun” if you don’t allow this as a DM. You’re just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.