All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Could it not be said that “nothing” is actually a thing? 🤔
"Hi there, folks! It’s me, Bees in My Head Benson, and boy, oh boy, do I have some un-bee-lievable deals for you today! I—OW!—can barely think with all these bees buzzin’ around in here, but that just means my prices are as WILD as my brain! You want a blender that doubles as a flamethrower? BAM! $19.99! Want a lamp that leaks honey when you turn it on? BOOM! Only $8.50, and it probably won’t attract more bees—OW!—probably!
Now, don’t even get me started on this thing—what is this thing?—it’s a… uh… a honey-coated shovel! Great for digging or swatting away bees, like the ones in my head! It’s yours for $3.00! Three dollars! I’m losing money here, folks! But who cares, right? I’ve got BEES! IN MY HEAD! CONSTANTLY! Buzz, buzz, buzz, right? OW!
So come on down before the bees take over entirely—OH NO, THEY’RE IN MY EARS! That’s bad! That’s REALLY bad! Don’t miss out on these sweet deals before I end up in the hospital or, uh, a beekeeper’s nightmare!" [1]
Re create something similar to “ants in my eyes Johnson” from Rick and Morty only with “bees in my head” […] Re created the skit monologue from the show
[…] [Scene: A chaotic, poorly lit store filled with strange, nonsensical items like honey-covered shoes, buzzing jars labeled “Pure Chaos,” and fans that blow bees instead of air. Benson stands behind a counter, shouting as bees swarm around inside the clear dome on his head.]
Bees in My Head Benson: “Hi there, folks! It’s me, Bees in My Head Benson, and boy, oh boy, do I have some un-bee-lievable deals for you today! I—OW!—can barely think with all these bees buzzin’ around in here, but that just means my prices are as WILD as my brain! You want a blender that doubles as a flamethrower? BAM! $19.99! Want a lamp that leaks honey when you turn it on? BOOM! Only $8.50, and it probably won’t attract more bees—OW!—probably!
Now, don’t even get me started on this thing—what is this thing?—it’s a… uh… a honey-coated shovel! Great for digging or swatting away bees, like the ones in my head! It’s yours for $3.00! Three dollars! I’m losing money here, folks! But who cares, right? I’ve got BEES! IN MY HEAD! CONSTANTLY! Buzz, buzz, buzz, right? OW!
So come on down before the bees take over entirely—OH NO, THEY’RE IN MY EARS! That’s bad! That’s REALLY bad! Don’t miss out on these sweet deals before I end up in the hospital or, uh, a beekeeper’s nightmare!”
[He starts flailing wildly, knocking over random products as the camera cuts to a chaotic scene of customers running away while bees fill the air.] […]
What specific features are you looking for?
[…] Anyone stupid enough to believe obvious rubbish doesn’t care what your source is.
I do understand your point, I think. I’ve had an ongoing quandary regarding how one should effectively debate irrationality. But I still personally believe that one’s allegiance to the truth is a matter of principle rather than a matter of pragmatism. I think sources should be cited not necessarily with the intent of using them as ammunition to prove an argument, but mainly for one to ground themselves in evidence based thinking.
Thank you for the source 🙂
[…] We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.
I hesitantly agree, though I would clarify that I don’t think that’s an argument for not improving the justice system.
[…] the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote […]
I would argue that the antidote is compassion.
[…] Which is why I’ll also assert that Literature classes as taught in later high school and into college aren’t really designed to be communication proficiency classes but art appreciation classes. […]
I think this is a fair point to make. I agree. Though, I would like to point out that that isn’t me downplaying “art appreciation”, but I agree that it is different than a subject targeted at improving clear communication.
I don’t follow how your point(s) relate to this post’s topic.
For the sake of clarity, do you think that journalist should directly cite their sources in their work? Or, perhaps, more specifically, under what circumstances do you think a journalist should directly cite their sources in their work?
As the defense industry consolidated, TI sold its defense business to the Raytheon Company in 1997 for $2.95 billion. […] [1]
Ha, punishable on summary conviction (it’s mentioned in the post’s cited law).
Canada had anti-fraudulent witchcraft laws.
I’ll update the title accordingly. I think it’s important to specify what you’ve stated, for clarity.
Also, imo, regular anti-fraud laws, and regular tort law can take over for the nonexistence of this specific law. For example, if someone is advertising a business, even if it’s something of an occult nature, and then they don’t deliver what they promise, I’d argue that that’s standard false advertisement.