That little snaggle tooth, give him a treat for me!

No, you are the one ascribing the reason without any evidence to support it, of course the article doesn’t back up your delusions, but that is the point, the article does not back up your delusions.

If your argument hinges on “intelligent design is real and The Creator™ made men hate tattoos” you need to prove the first part before the second can be “true.” If intelligent design is not real then no creator made men hate tattoos, simple as.

Yeah, now they can shave, but for most of human history that wasn’t the case (unless you think we’re 2000 yr old and Adam and Eve is literal not apocryphal, the human race is much older than recorded history, which is much older than 2000yr, unless you’re one of those “The Devil put dinosaur bones there to fool us” types). If what you say is true we never would have gotten to even develop fire before we died because nobody was shaving so nobody wanted to fuck.

Evidence for a creator is not off topic, it’s the entire crux of your argument. Your argument is literally “god told me to.” If god is then not real and instead all of science is correct with the theory of evolution, then your entire argument is also not real. That’s kinda the problem with hanging your insane theories on an unprovable creator, technically you can never be “disproven” as you can keep saying “god told me” while ignoring anything inconvenient as you do, but anyone who isn’t dumb enough to already fall for that won’t ever be convinced.

But this is already settled, I told you I talked to my god and he said yours is a liar. I will accept no further debate on this topic because my god is infallible and you can’t prove otherwise.

But can it be social if there’s no other people? Can one “socialize” with AI?

If you remove the bars you still lessen your security, no matter how safe you think the neighborhood may be, and you’re still going against the architect’s design despite your subjective opinion on the beauty (or lack thereof) of the bars. In fact Mosquitos are one of the world’s most dangerous animals to this day and those would be the bugs that hair blocks, we still “need” our bars, by your own logic.

So yes, god (at least with a small “g” unless you specify Allah, Yaweah, Jehovah, Xenu, JHVH-1, El, Prometheus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Khnum, etc). Your theory only holds up as “true” (and tenuously at that, if ) if your god is real. Pascals wager is fun and all but until such time as you can prove the existence of such a creator, your conclusions are unprovable.

After further thought, I think my blemish hypothesis is correct…The reason could be

You don’t even believe your own rationalizations and refuse to let your conscious mind see it. You would have said “is.”

The designer created humans with artistic ability.

But not the ability to distinguish art from sickness?

Fun fact, my god told me tattoos are hot and body hair is natural, and my god is bigger than your god, so therefore you’re wrong.

As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced

Due to the technological advancement we have conditioned ourselves to think this, but as “the architect” designed we have it and we’re supposed to like it (by your “architect” logic). It’d be like if your house was designed with window screens but you didn’t like them so you took them off, they were put there by the architect for a reason and you are altering the house by taking them away. We’re supposed to believe that altering the same house by adding a coat of paint is bad, yet altering it by removing window screens is A-Ok.

The crux of your issue seems to be that you’re so theistic you believe some immortal being directly beams thoughts to your head individually, and thus those thoughts must be “what god intended.” Since it’s no longer 0BC the rest of us know you’re not really talking to the bush.

You came up with a bad hypothesis and then backed it up with a shoddy study that doesn’t draw the conclusions you think it does. Correlation != causation, and I doubt the studies mention “cause god said so” anywhere anyway. It doesn’t make sense because you’re reading too deep into these studies in an attempt to justify your biases through your religious framework.

Know what? If god didn’t want us to get tattoos he wouldn’t have invented tattoo guns, same as razors, howboutdat?

The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive

Nah he made the hair and made the reproductive mechanism we call sex which is fueled by attraction, clearly the intent (which frankly is a ridiculous concept to argue w.r.t biology so I guess we’re working within a religious framework at this point, biology cannot have “intent,” being a concept) was that we be attracted to the hair God put there, the attraction to hairlessness was born relatively recently to homo sapiens’ existence. I’d believe relative hairlessness is attractive to our species as a whole through a holdover of self selecting us VS neanderthals, except that we didn’t war them to extinction, we interbred.

Frankly shaving at all is spitting in God’s face removing the hair he created you with, by the “architect” logic.

So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive

So you again dispute your own argument that all tattoos are interpreted by the brain as “blemishes” and therefore “sickness.” If you won’t listen to my argument at least listen to yours.

as long as they are feminine, delicate,

And women? Do they have the same requirements w.r.t attractive tattoos on men, or do they prefer tattoos that are manly and tough? Perhaps straight men just prefer women who are feminine and delicate, which duh, and this tattoo preference is an extension of that. It also applies to facial features, hairstyles, clothes, so why wouldn’t it extend to tattoos?

I conclude that you conjure conclusions where there are none. Do you come from a country or culture that actually does view tattoos that way, like Japan or (apparently) Korea, by chance? Just a hunch. Japan thinks tattoos are only for criminals, for instance.

No I know most people don’t know, this is the “expert” (not that expert but in context) informing. Wasn’t trying to be a dick.

I was gonna say a Coyote (you’d be surprised how far into a populated area they’ll travel) but then “Europe” and I don’t think you have those, so nevermind (unless your country does have them and I’m wrong, then that’s my guess).

If I had to guess given that, fox or rival cat. Maybe stray dog.

Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.

Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.

As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.

Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive. Love me a hot pale freckled woman.

Banksy isn’t graffiti, he’s street art. They’re cousins but there is a difference.

And he’s not that good, he ripped off Blek Le Rat. And he has no respect for his predecessors, going over King Robbo (RIP.) I’ll take a bomber like JA XTC or MQ, or a freight king like Ichabod or Jase over Banksy any day, personally.

To elaborate a little, feature bans (like magazines, pistol grips, adjustable stocks) are a fairly “recent” (comparatively) development in gun control. Some idiots figured “if we can’t ban the ones we don’t like because we’ve been repeatedly told it violates people’s rights, we’ll violate them by proxy through banning features of those guns we don’t like,” and then the market adapting to sell legal versions in CA because they can’t actually stop it that way. They’re literally always pointless and intended to circumvent the court rulings, and so a cat and mouse game of loopholes is born.

Access restrictions historically go back to the birth of the country, and only because further back than that would be British laws. They were first used against slaves of course, they couldn’t own guns, then after that the laws were used to stop free black people from arming themselves in the Jim Crow era, and then specifically to answer “why are the CA laws so bad,” well, besides the feature bans which are newer of course the answer for CA’s shit laws is Ronald Reagan made them to disarm the Black Panther party who was causing problems for the racist LAPD by following them and making sure they didn’t brutalize black members of the community. Access restrictions are firmly rooted in racism full stop. True, today’s anti self defense activists are kind enough to extend their fear to everyone, but that is where it came from.

And in many cases, where the Sheriffs office is the deciding factor in who can get permits, in practice that is still how it is used. One I remember reading about, one state had a requirement to get a permit to even purchase a pistol, they ended it, mostly because someone found out 60% of permit denials went to black people. Others are still like that, and that state probably still is with carry permits, tbh.

Depends highly on the city/town, not everywhere is super active 24/7, some cities do sleep.

It also can’t be cleaned off as fast as paint, and costs more to replace.

Or

Put a fucking bullet in it. Or ~100. Birdshot should do nicely.

Well if you’re carrying it for defense it has to be loaded by definition, the attacker never gives you time to load it lol, BUT:

A) Get a handgun and a proper holster, much easier. You can even get a trigger guard, so it’s safe® if your state has dumb unsafe laws that tell you to leave a loaded gun unsecured flopping around a car, at least the trigger is blocked.

B) If you’re married to the unsecured shotgun that then has to be loaded, you can’t leave it chambered, or this could happen.

It’s dumb either way, for sure, it’s complete negligence on their part.

Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn’t even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don’t vote.

Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y’know, consistancy applied and all.

In many “open carry” states, that’s one of the only legal places you can put it without inadvertantly “concealing” it (the others being usually “on the dash” which is insane or “in the trunk” which technically is “transporting” not “carrying.”) Pretty bad idea and is unsafe as hell, if you do that you shouldn’t have a round chambered (or imo shouldn’t do it at all, concealing it illegally is honestly safer), but y’know what are you gonna do.

Pretty sure this guy could be charged with criminal negligence for that since a bystander was hit btw, as to whether the DA will decide to bring charges we could never guess it’s a coin toss, maybe they have already for all I know.

Even in the first scenario, what stops there from being multiple wake words with different functionality? So like “ok google” wakes up the bot but “pepsi” wakes it silently and has it tick a box on the back end of a server that now sends me Coke adds because they paid about $3.50 for the privilege?