Datasets:
jjz5463
/
hard-negatives

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
anchor
stringlengths
100
28k
negative
stringlengths
105
28k
The latest studies from the Guttmacher institute (2008) shows me the statistics on who is receiving abortions but I was hoping, in order to understand the issue better, to find studies linking the access to contraceptives to abortion rates. Specifically looking for the delta. People would not need abortions as much if when having sex that they did not want to result in pregnancy, used appropriate contraceptives (obviously). A study by Guttmacher show that ["Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception"](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html) If we also look at the percentages from [Guttmacher 10% of pregnancies are due to rape (0.5) incest (0.5) or health concerns for the mother/fetus (9%).](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf) So that leaves 90% of pregnancies that could of been 'planned'. This NCBI study shows that ["[The Study] I find fairly strong evidence that young women’s birthrates dropped as a result of abortion access as well as evidence that birth control pill access led to a drop in birthrates among whites."](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2834388/) So why is it just whites? Is there data that shows a correlation between access to birth control and poverty levels? Just trying to understand this issue better. In the end my question is this: I see lots of studies being cited by either side that conflict each other but I was hoping for some that are from more reputable sources sans speculation.
>1) In the US, it is not mandatory for women to have paid maternity leave. There are laws in place (which have many loopholes, as I know from experience) that will protect their job while they are away, but many women leave work without pay to give birth. This is pretty messed up, in my opinion, and I think both parents should have the option of paid parental leave. But I digress. Even if paid leave is not mandatory, you would definitely rustle some feathers if you decided to not give a woman leave. And if a woman is ever planning on having a child, and she was a rational human being who tried to maximize her money, she would choose an employer who has it all else equal. Also, in the end she **would be leaving anyway** which adds costs of hiring another person as well, which you would never even have to worry about with a male. >2) I'm really confused as to why you're using this as an argument against discrimination. This is textbook discrimination. Not all women will have to leave work to have children or play homemaker, so if employers are denying them jobs or giving them lower pay on the assumption that they are going to do so, simply because of their sex, there is really nothing else to call it. And there's no reason to think that men won't need time off from work, either. Men have families, too. Men get sick. Men have injuries. Men die at potentially the most inconvenient times for a company. It's not the employers denying them any jobs. Actually, its quite the reverse at least where I work (large defense contractor, not a "progressive" company by any stretch of the imagination). I have worked in the hiring process at my company and I have heard multiple times, "it's always good to have more female opinions!". Women are encouraged to go for higher positions, because diversity is good in any decision making process. But the reality is, either most of them either don't want that, or have some magical imaginary force oppressing them. My bet is on the prior. And while men get sick, men have injuries, and die, they can never ever produce a child. So they are not completely equal. To claim that men and women should have **exactly** equal pay because they are equal is just wishful in my opinion. Men and women are not equal in all ways. Because of social attitudes, men **IN GENERAL** want a certain life, and women **IN GENERAL** want a certain life.
One of my top k9 teeth is finally about to fall out! I know that's not too unusual...except I'm 25 years old and that little bastard has firmly been attached to my skull this entire time. Apparently there's the "adult" tooth behind it but it has not made any effort to emerge. I've been wiggling it every now and then a lot more lately but I'm honestly a little afraid of it actually coming out and I'll be left with a massive gap in my grill, which doesn't look too classy. Today I was eating lunch and when I bit down the tooth popped to the side painfully and started bleeding. Now I'm sitting here with a pair of pliers, debating drinking some whisky about it and ripping the fucker the rest the way off. I hope I'm able to rock the hillbilly look until I can afford a nice blingin gold tooth. How are you guys? Any one have baby teehh still as an adult? What about any gold teeth?
Youre completely right, we were being idyllic and stupid. After the neighbors dogs and her first family dog died i was going to lend them money to build a fence so that the other dog could just run around in the yard. She had exhibited zero symptoms and we were so glad she was safe but then she started to throw up out of absolutely nowhere a day later and it all went downhill from there. This was such a preventable situation if we had just been less complacent and if that lady hadnt been so evil and just...i dont know man...Ive disliked but never hated anyone in my life before but i hate her :( Its all just a mess.
Islam (IIRC) views man as being made of clay (<PERSON> has linguistic links to various semetic words for clay) while the Jinn are made of fire. Both humans and Jinn are endowed with free will. Jinn can be of any religion and are not always either evil or good. The Peacock Angel has a lot in common with some Gnostic ideas where the God encompasses both a dark and light side.
&gt; it's theorized that Judaism's condemnation of homosexuality derives from Zoroastrianism's. The levitical texts prohibiting homosexual acts are probably too early for such influence. Only in the very lowest chronology would it be possible for Zoroastrian influence. More likely is that it is part of the Babylonian and/or Assyrian milieu of which the Israelites were a part. Edit: to to too
Something working differently in practice than in intention does not mean "working incorrectly". You have to accept how forums develop if you want them to continue existing and thriving, and r/politics serves a satisfied community of millions as a newsfeed hub. You can't change how this works for its audience, you can only change whether it works.
What does "neglecting" an area mean except for not implementing the policies they want? It's not like a politician is going to write "nuke the rednecks lol" in his program and the coastal cities will put him in office for it. National policy applies to every citizen everywhere no matter where they live, there's no reason the vote shouldn't follow suit.
So I guess that makes us moral cherry-pickers? Ok, I can live with that... But keep in mind, many (dare I say most?) atheists believe morals are an evolutionary development that helped with survival. If this is correct, then our morals are innate for evolutionary reasons, not adapted by Judeo-Christian culture. If anything, I could argue Judeo-Christian morals originate from evolution, not God or the bible.
I'll admit there are valid arguments for atheism, but you can't logic something into truth. The premises of those arguments are what I don't agree with. In that case, atheism is rational but incorrect. More specifically, I say there is enough evidence to warrant belief in God, but it is possible to reject that evidence.
The court and judge didn't change, nor did the date or time of our scheduled court setting. As far as hiring an attorney, the amount I would pay to hire an attorney is more than what I would pay if the judge awards the plaintiff the full damages he is claiming. So unless I'm ignorant of the possible outcomes of the trial (which could be the case), hiring an attorney and winning would likely be a worse outcome than representing myself and losing. edit: Forgot to thank you for the response. Thank you.
No one said anything about forcing. I'm saying, if you had the option (and everyone agreed, no forcing, etc.. etc...), would you like your god's law to be the law everyone lives by? I'm still interested in your responses to the contradiction I pointed out and my question about god being the source of justice/law.
&gt; I had already heard stories about back room where all the traffic could have been monitored. Stories, you believe stories? So believing these stories about a secret back room is perfectly logical but someone *theorising* there is a back room where this occurs is where you draw the line? Seems somewhat arbitrary. &gt; There are plenty of debunking websites. I've seen websites that debunk the theory of evolution, I'm asking you a direct question. &gt; Well if you don't like the current situation, are you engaged in politics trying to change it ? Or are you building solutions ? No ? So you might not have such great insights about what you're talking about, or you don't even show honest intention to change things. That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one. The implication of your accusation being you have your fingers in every pie imaginable. Well, do you? Do you know exactly what goes down in the halls of power? Does the proclaimed president of the free world, look to you, <PERSON>, for the nod to go ahead with any new policies or any covert operations? I sincerely doubt it. &gt;That's why conspiracy theories are nutty and propaganda with some kind of agenda against something in particular. Whoa whoa whoa, so conspiracy theorists are the only people spitballing ideas for propaganda means? Lets assume for a moment that this is even plausible, do you think that they're the only people who employ propaganda to sell their message? What makes propaganda from one source nutty but the other source a legitimate concern that people should take seriously?
Can't we have that spectrum awareness without further pigeonholing people? We can't achieve that awareness simply by acknowledging that it's all a spectrum without trying to label the infinite parts? I can see how it might be useful to talk about certain emerging subgroups using a label, obviously there will be times where that would be appropriate. However, the people who don't see or agree with the spectrum will only be pushed away by the endless labels. If the mission is to signal your uniqueness to everyone whether they care or not then I suppose it's working but if the mission is to get people to stop judging others for their uniqueness this isn't the way to do it.
Whoa dude. Are we sorta distant brothers of sorts? I have a crush on my best friend. She is the best person I have met. But I really don't know if she likes me back or not. I also suffer from anxiety, and generally I don't like interactions in person. But, she was different. I am sorry to hear about what you got through. I hope you find someone awesome.
I am not personally denying. I am offering up counter arguments. Devil's advocate. You cannot present an atom as much as they cannot present a god. but as to radiocarbon dating scientists date fossils by the surrounding rock and date the surrounding rock by fossils found in them. A bit circular and unscientific if true.
TL;DR: I started out talking about how easy it was to impress my mother in law and got into how hard it was to impress my wife's father. He very nearly ruined my wedding day in what likely was the least surprising outcome. I make a great first impression when I'm one on one with someone. I'm affable, quick witted, funny etc. So it was no problem to leave a good impression with my now mother in law. I honestly think she really likes me. She doesn't live around us so there's no meddling. She's great. My wife's father on the other hand is bipolar and isn't always on his meds with a family that doesn't quite have a handle on him. I remember the first time I met him, I put out my hand for a handshake and he just let it linger for a while until he finally shook it. We were on our way to a dinner with her whole family and suddenly he couldn't go and blew off her fucking college graduation because he thought my being around (at this point we had been dating for a few months) was ambushing him and everyone was in on this trick. He's a humongous asshole who will randomly text/email some vile shit to my wife (at least he used to). I refuse to have anything to do with him. Of course, my wife and her family decided to tell me 3 DAYS BEFORE THE WEDDING that he was coming or was thinking of it. I was very, very against it and very angry that it had been sprung on me last minute because it was supposed to be a decision we reached together. I stand firm that he pretty much can't be there but if he wants to come and have a civil conversation about my relationship with his daughter and his role in the wedding I will do that. So the rehearsal dinner comes around and he's there. My wife's whole family is like please give him a shot. Fine, I'll be the bigger man. I approach him and I'm like we have a lot to talk about. He goes on and on about how much he loves his daughter and how it's going to be great to give her away at the wedding. (EDIT: Feel like I need to clarify here. He made a huge leap and assumed that he would be walking my wife down the aisle after making her life hell for as long as he's known me and never ever acknowledging that I even existed. He needed to make amends way before anything like this happened. This was my wife and I's day and he intended to disrespect my feelings on the matter because he believed ultimately that my wife was the only one who had a say in the matter.) Basically, I'm like "What have you done for me and my wife that makes you think you deserve to have anything to do with our wedding? The only times I've ever heard anything about you is after you've done something horrible to your daughter and I have to help make her feel better and recover from being a crying mess" Basically, he's just like "I'm her father. Of course I'm going to be there." And I have to tell him that he's not going to be there and it isn't a conspiracy, no one is trying to ambush him and this isn't something that just happened out of no where. There are consequences to his actions and one of them is that he is not allowed to be at the wedding. We're sitting alone away from people but it's obviously getting heated. This motherfucker tries to drag my wife into the argument to leverage her against me as if he could guilt her into making me see his side. On this of all days, he was using her for his own needs. I had to tell him that if he showed up to the church I was going to either personally remove him or have the police show up. (EDIT: I should also add that he made a very thinly veiled threat at this point.) He was taken away by one of his brothers and I was just sitting alone fuming. My wife had left to cry because of the emotional manipulation which she was all too used to growing up. Anyway, that was one of the hardest conversations I've ever had to have. I wanted to do right by my wife and her family but he made it impossible. Luckily, my mother and law was there and she reassured me that I didn't do anything wrong and her ex-husband just doesn't really get it because of his mental illness. He views life through an altered prism where everything anyone does either is about him or affects him personally. Anyway, this was a rant I didn't expect to get into but something I think about when thinking of impressing my wife's parents. It's so easy in one case but so hard in another.
What sex education and who decides? My wife and I home school our kids and we've taught them sex education from the complete biological POV. We've also taught them what we believe the purpose of sex is and why it is important in our lives and what purpose it serves. I doubt what we believe would be acceptable to you (or most people on Reddit). But they're our kids and we'll raise them and teach them what we want. So the bottom line is this: You leave me alone and don't push your beliefs on me and I'll return the same courtesy to you.
haha ok , shit i wish that was true. Id have less to worry about . But judging by your response your probably alone and struggling to find some one . Dont worry if you need any help on how to approach women I can help you. I hear your cry for help Im here for you just pm me ;)
if you were a woman and one guy sent you the message "Hello" and another sent you the message " Hey there. I noticed your profile. It seems like you and I have a lot in common. I would love to talk with you more. Message me back if your interested." Which message would you respond to?
Imagine if dieting was the cornerstone of your lifestyle and you formed a relationship with your partner around it, with both of you putting an enormous amount of trust in the other to keep true to that commitment. Cheating isn't like saying you'll take out the garbage and then forgetting; it's going back on one of the core terms of a monogamous relationship. If you entered a business partnership, you'd be rightfully offended if your partner failed to deliver one of the core things they promised that made the partnership worthwhile to you in the first place.
I'd always thought throwaways were effective at separating a post from your online identity - to be anonymous in that moment to users of the site. I mentioned the level of detail because if her ex ever came across it, not recognizing the user, it'd become pretty obvious to him once he read it.
Don't know about getting accepted as a high school grad, but you could always go to community college and then transfer... you get all of your GEs done at a much cheaper tuition and then you can "erase" your High School record as when you transfer they'll only be looking at your college work.
I don't think you can really make that argument personally, not rationally in the least. If only for the fact that there are some 2,000 odd gods out there and to make your argument justly and without bias you'd have to give equal time and weight to the other 1,999 gods using your logic, where-as an atheist would say there is as much evidence for any of the others as there is for yours.... none, and therefore you should not believe in something without some form of evidence (science is only a method, not a qualifier for "types" of evidence).
When are you guys getting married? I would say prioritize your relationship with her first. That being said, it still might be possible to take the job and keep your long-distance relationship up. It would be very difficult. The reason I say prioritize the relationship first is that it's harder to find a quality significant other than to find a job. Also, this job may look like a dream now but you don't really know what it will be like. You've been with your fiance long enough to know more about them and know you want to be committed to them.
I mean I would generally agree with you but I can definitely think of a circumstance in which I would prefer online to in-person interaction. Sometimes there are people I don't really enjoy being with but have no choice to interact with on some level. Keeping things online for as much as possible helps me limit my exposure to them. In that case, I would consider my online interaction more "fulfilling" I guess in that it's less terrible.
/u/the_howling_cow actually linked the same thing I was going to, but the first half of *[United States Army in World War II, European Theater of Operations: The Siegfried Line Campaign](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Siegfried/index.html),* mentions Operation Market Garden, which is often mentioned as an operation that set them back to a longer conflict. The Allies failed to cross the Rhine in sufficient force and failed to hold the bridges and locations they sought and wouldn't break through until March 1945 - in fact, Arnhem itself would not be liberated until mid April of 1945. It also changed a lot of military thinking to this day, regarding the employment of lightly armed paratroopers with little support, especially those being dropped into areas where the potential of engaging heavy enemy units
From the wartime *Army Officer's Pocket Companion*: &gt;The bureau duties of adjutant-generals and assistants are: publishing orders in writing; making up written instructions and transmitting them; reception of reports and returns; disposing of them; forming tables, showing the state and position of corps; regulating details of service; corresponding with the administrative departments relative to the wants of troops; the methodical arrangement and care of the records and papers of the office. &gt;The active duties of adjutant-generals consist in establishing camps; visiting guards and outposts; mustering and inspecting troops; inspecting guards and detachments; forming parades and lines of battle; the conduct and control of deserters and prisoners; making reconnoissances(sic); and in general, discharging such other active duties as may be assigned them. For aides-de-camp: &gt;These are ex-officio assistant adjutant-generals (Act March 2, 1821). They are confidential officers selected by general officers to assist them in their military duties. A lieutenant-general appoints not exceeding four in time of war, and two in peace, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. A major-general appoints two, and a brigadier-general one. The act of August 5, 1861 enacts that "during the existing insurrection," the president may appoint aides-de-camp at will, with the rank of captains, majors, lieutenant-colonels, or colonels, upon the recommendation of the lieutenant-general, or of a major general commanding an army in the field. These appointments to be recalled whenever the president thinks proper. &gt;Aides-de-camp are attached to the person of the general, and receive orders only from him. Their functions are difficult and delicate. Often enjoying the full confidence of the general, they are employed in representing him, in writing orders, in carrying them in person if necessary, in communicating them verbally upon battle-fields and fields of manoeuvre(sic). It is important that aides-de-camp should know well the positions of troops, routes, posts, quarters of generals, composition of columns, and orders of corps; facility in the use of the pen should be joined with exactness of expression; upon fields of battle they watch the movements of the enemy; not only grand manoeuvres(sic) but special tactics should be familiar to them. It is necessary that their knowledge be sufficiently comprehensive to understand the object and purpose of all orders, and also to judge, in the varying circumstances of a battle-field, whether it is not necessary to modify an order when carried in person, or if there be time to return for new instructions. So let's unpack this a bit. Both adjutants and aides-de-camp assist their commanding officer with administrative and communicative tasks. The first distinction is that, while adjutants existed at the regimental level, only generals had aides-de-camp. The second distinction is that the adjutant is an ordinary post, somewhat analogous to the chief-of-staff in the 20th century. The aide-de-camp is a temporary, at-will appointment, and the officer in question is much more attached to the person of the general, functioning as a sort of private secretary-cum-emissary on his chief's behalf.
Oh my fuck. Somewhere out there is a person who looks almost just like me. And I might never meet him. Someday he and I might go to the same coffee shop in the same city, just a few hours apart. The barista might think "huh, swear I served that guy earlier". Then we'd both get back to the airport and fly to different corners of the world, and never be aware of just how close we came to fucking blowing our minds.
I googled my real name, and I got no hits of myself. My last name is very rare, and there are very, very few people with my same name. Those show up, but no hits for my own person. I love it. My two main online handlers show up everywhere though, but I'm fine with that. I grew up with no internet, and when it was available to me, the thought was always "never give away your info, never give away your identity, hide behind a made up one". And that kind of mentality has never left me. What happens when you google your name? Do you have online handlers you stick with, besides your reddit one?
I'm a full time student and have a jury duty summons for tomorrow. Gotta call an automated number after 6 PM today to see if my jury # is called up. I didn't think to call them weeks ago and ask if I could get out of it being a student, because everyone I talked to (family, friends) said that there's pretty much no way to get out of it... apparently they were wrong. So, what I'm asking is, if I do get called to show up tomorrow, can I tell the clerk or whoever I report to I'm a student upon arrival and get out of it? Thanks everyone.
I have a Powerbook G4, and it's about time to upgrade. Honestly, it's served me better than both my windows machines and has reliably ran a ton of stuff. I'm hoping for the price to go down on the newer Macbook Pro, though, since I want to but it for college next semester. I work with Maya, AutoCAD, Photoshop and Lightroom, (worked on Maya, and AutoCAD on windows desktop that I kept for playing BF3, or when I need to have more memory for huge photoshop files) and here's hoping it'll run all of those nicely.
... Aah, I understand now. You had a motive. I hoped it wasn't the case, but it's hard to take these Americanized "free speech" arguments sincerely when they always seem to be a Trojan horse. Most people even with problems don't join the Nazis, because the ones who do are scum. Point blank from a "white". Also, it isn't because being "white is a problem" it's because the nazis, the whole lot of them are murderous bastards. As demonstrated time and time again.
Maybe they were depressed, or going through a depressive episode of their life. Guess what, people pay good money to read their stories, to get to know them, to relate to them. You're complaining about people putting "their struggles a league above others" in another reply to me, and you do this? Their shit ain't insignificant just because they're successful, nor any less real. Also, it's not exactly intrusive bragging if they get asked a question and give an answer, so it's a poor example.
I don't think any analogy will be perfect for this case. Its a difficult question. I agree with your side of things, I just wanted to point out the difficulty of making an analogy in general during CMV. It is an effective vehicle for making people understand, on the other hand!
If the IL Secretary of State becomes aware of any underage alcohol-related offense committed as a minor, you will have license suspended. This an administrative process, not a criminal process. Its similar to having your license suspended for refusing to submit to DUI testing. It is irrelevant if the alcohol offense is related to driving, you simply have to be convicted of an age-based offense. Based on that other linked thread, you have a few options. You can choose to gamble your license on whether or not they have a case against you. My guess is that you're guilty, otherwise you wouldn't be worried about this at all. So, you can hope they have nothing and ignore it, the trade-off being that if you're wrong, you will lose you license for a while. Your other option is to take their offer of a local ordinance ticket and basically take a hit to save your license. You can certainly show up and talk with them, showing up is not a presumption of guilt and no reputable judge would convict you solely for showing up to entertain their offer. I had a similar situation and I was offered a larger fine to have the charge amended to an open alcohol in public (not age related) and got to keep my license. One thing to note is that the license suspension is not up to the judge or police, it is from the Secretary of State and the only way to reverse it is to request a suspension hearing. It's really up to you, the only way to negotiate the charges and such is to basically admit to it and work out a plea, which is why I say you basically are gambling your license on the strength of their case.
&gt; oh i agree, it is a weak argument, but its one of many One of many bad arguments. A few more are [listed here](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheistgems/comments/egr7o/why_there_is_no_god_quick_responses_to_some/) with their common retorts. If you have one that is not on this list or that you think resist the counter-argument given, please be my guest. &gt; im just playing around with you in your own delusional box. That's super cute. But know that when you want to stop playing and start debating, we don't mind seeing a strong argument. Some of us have actually waited for a half-solid argument for years. Contrary to what you seem to believe, atheism is not exactly comfortable. It would be nice to have directions and the promise of an eternal life. So give us a convincing argument, and we will believe in religion. But so far, God seems to be like <PERSON>: it would be nice if it existed, but all the arguments in favor are bad and fabricated.
&gt; So your reply to OP about god's problematic behavior is "What problem?" I would say that the ball is in your court to make a case for why his actions aren't problematic. I believe I have done this. The [wrestling one](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/9a/84/059a847c38c6ea663a8a0f51e7630f67.jpg) was quickly dispelled since [plenty of good people wrestle with others](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/65/6f/57/656f57a40990f728bbd628a4c40130dd--my-life-quotes-movie-quotes.jpg). The circumcision one I agreed was more problematic but stand by the conclusion that you don't merely get to say "God was wrong" and move on. If the argument were that God's behavior does not conform to the expectations of the OP there would be no argument; but their argument is that God's behavior does not conform to some shared value... but lacking a more thorough explanation of that criticism it is demonstrably false since the shared value of most people is to trust God's judgment. It is begging the question, saying "this is wrong, now justify your existence." There is no rational persuasive power to a person and nothing to argue about. &gt;Because to most people, it seems pretty psychotic to nearly kill a guy because he didn't mutilate his child's genitals, or to require genital mutilation at all, or to allow a man's family to be killed over a bet with the devil. Since most people in the world are Christian, Jewish or Muslim this is demonstrable false. Also that is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. So you can't say "most people believe..." in a debate and its a good thing for you since most people disagree with you.
I live in Harrisburg as well my friend. The reality is that news doesn't exist anymore. It's just people manufacturing stories. It's insanely disrespectful for them to do what they did. Sadly this is not a WGAL problem, or a central Pennsylvania problem. It's a nationwide problem. The "news" is a business and they want their money. They don't care who they have to go through to get it and they don't care how many stories they need to manufacture or what false narrative they have to feed to everybody. I'm sorry to hear about your uncle.
How so? It's not statutory rape. Period. That's a fact based on PA law. Now about the corruption of minors law, the text is [here](http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&amp;ttl=18&amp;div=0&amp;chpt=63) And honestly, I can't find anything in there that prohibits sex between an 18 year old with a 15 year old. Things like truancy, alcohol, drugs, or other criminal behavior would apply if relevant, but sex alone wouldn't. Do you have absolutely any evidence to back up your belief that a law would be broken?
Absolute rot, he almost certainly does nothing, and we have absolutely no evidence of him doing anything. If I suggested either unicorns on mars dance, or they do nothing is the chance 0 and 1? No. Not unless you don't go outside the local parameters of the sentence dance/nothing which is a mere semantic issue that says nothing about god.
I love the film, it's rare we see a strong attempt at portaying prehistoric humans in an accurate fashion with realistic "hollywood" cinematography. Watching a lot of documentaries we'll see a focus on accuracy but with no story, or awful CGI that does little justice to immersive quality. There's some glaring issues with it, like the obvious lack of body hair of Aki(the female H.Sapiens), and some artistic liberties, but it's otherwise the most accurate hollywood level potrayal of prehistoric humans yet produced. As for finding it, it's European so the DVD/BluRay may be PAL Standard. You might wanna look for...other options.
I believe this. I once asked a girl out on a date after a few weeks of walking her back to her dorm and talking alone and seeming to have a great time together. The blood drained completely from her face when she saw the flowers I brought. It was readily apparent from the first 5 minutes this was a terrible idea, but she just kept saying "let's just go" so I thought maybe she was just nervous. This led to an afternoon of one-word responses and a very uncomfortable viewing of a movie. When we got back to the dorm, she just got out of the car without looking at me and went inside. She wouldn't talk to me the rest of the semester. It's entirely possible I stepped in it somehow or did something creepy that I wasn't aware of, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it was. Either way, I feel like I dodged a bullet if she couldn't handle communicating even that to me.
It took me a while to realize this, but I think girls are pretty much no different from guys in almost every regard. There will be a time in your life where an unattractive girl hits on you. Maybe it's something about her personality, but usually it's because of something physically. Do you say "Oh, you're ugly and that's disgusting that you think yourself capable of hooking up with me?" No, you smile and act modest when she compliments you on that rock-hard body. It's an asshole move but even a guy will keep a girl company if she continues to lavish him with praise or attention, even if he has no intention of hooking up with her. tl;dr While it might be true that most girls play mind games with guys at your age, it's safe to say that most guys play mind games with girls too. I'm sure you have friends who try to play hard-to-get with the ladies just because it's fun to be the center of attention. edit: Girls also poop, and they think about sex just as much as you do. They just refuse to tell you.
I dunno. If she will, then maybe, but my guess is that if she genuinely thinks the place is haunted to the point of tracking down some ghost hunters and possibly paying them, then she probably at the very minimum has some fears, and at the most 100% believes the place is haunted and thinks the ghost hunters is a solution. If I were in her position, I would be somewhere between upset to very angry at my SO's idea.
Yep. I stopped talking to my mother at about 15 because of shit like that. Now I rarely call her, and when I do the only stuff I tell her about my life are things large enough that I couldn't keep it a secret if I tried. I imagine if I got cancer, she'd find out from my girlfriend when I died.
&gt;Of course it doesn't surprise me when authority figures oppress women. It's not just women. Powerful people are inclined to abuse their power. It doesn't matter if it's two football players who know their strength, numbers, and popularity will let them get away with rape, a prison guard who knows he can do whatever he feels like to prisoners, or a police officer who knows his badge will let him get away with beating a guy senseless. He who has the power is very likely to abuse the power. &gt;I think the fact you're not surprised by it speaks volumes about how systemic the oppression is. Power corrupts. It's one of those nice things that you learn if you major in something other than gender studies.
&gt;You say "the brown-eyed people" as if they're all the same person. Or as if they're somehow all guilty of each other's crime. The blue-eyed people all suffered at the hands of brown-eyed people. It doesn't matter who was personally responsible, the blue-eyed people still benefited while the brown-eyed suffered. &gt;That is the very definition of racial prejudice -- with no information other than eye-colour, you are lumping all brown-eyed people together and then suggesting that 'because some brown-eyed people did X, therefore all brown-eyed people ...'. No. That's not at all what's happening. You're reverse engineering the situation and thinking that they are equal, they're not. Blue-eyed people suffered then and continue to suffer. To be part of the solution, some brown-eyed people attempt to rectify and check their language to ensure that they're part of the solution, not part of the problem. Again, you're equating "not being able to say a word" with "actually suffering from discrimination". One of these things is not like the other. For your consideration, I put forth a new scenario. Let's say that the word "chunular" is a word that you've never really cared to use before, but it turns out that your friend was called that as a child to make fun of him. Apparently it has something to do with his appearance and intelligence, and to hear it makes him think of all the times that the kids at school were making fun of him and he asks you not to use that word. Would you still insist that you ***need*** to use that word?
Is it not possible that when every person you come to says they feel there is something wrong with your source, that you might possibly want to take another look at it and determine it's accuracy? Anyone can post whatever they can find that'll turn up in a google search and call it evidence, would it not be worthwhile you checking the post out to determine it's value yourself before throwing it into the discussion. Or did you purposefully choose this one because this remarkably high value strengthens your argument? Akin to climate scientists on both sides picking only "doomsday"? Tell you what, I won't give you my numbers, I'll just judge your source: *What is the purpose of this evidence: Well the first line says &gt;"Obviously this is all in good fun and in no way 100% scientific, but for the 13th consecutive year we're doing our small part to show everyone how important mothers are by calculating what they would be paid if they actually received a salary for all of their hard work." So I'd say humour before accuracy. Likewise, the site is trying to catch your attention for views so it is likely going to go for populist or over-the-top catchy articles over evidence that confirms the status-quo or doesn't grab the attention of it's target audience, can't say whether this would be worse than any non-scientific news source though. They do want you to use their "Mom Salary Wizard", so displaying all evidence at once is secondary to precious page links they want to rack up those advertising dollars. *Are they likely to have a bias Stay at home Moms spend apparently 8.9 hours a week on the computer, compared to working Moms who apparently can only spend 6.5 hours a week. As a website, this would make it in their interest to have more stay-at-home Moms who could spend more time clicking their links,so I'd suggest their bias is towards staying at home. The "average time spent" comes last years input from working and stay-at-home Moms. I'd expect that both groups are going some way towards inflating their numbers. Both groups would love to be able to add as much value as possible towards their "worth" - in fact I posit that every person in any role they do would inflate their worth given the chance. Likewise with only two groups you immediately add competition, the two groups (stay-at-home and working) are opposed and since they are not being independently questioned I would suggest that both would like to prove their greater intrinsic worth (akin to the effect you see when people try to justify something they've bought that turns out to be shitty and they won't admit it) and so *both* are likely to inflate their numbers (time spent). Perhaps most damning is that before they input their time spent, they can see on the left the "average" from last year. This in itself would taint the results by suggesting a result to put in where the user may be unsure or likely to err on the side of lower numbers. In this case however, it also has the added side-effect of instilling competition and shame into trying to give higher numbers than the average as what Mother would like to think they don't tidy or clean or cook as much as the "average" Mom? To admit so would be to admit that you were "lazier" than the average - no one will admit to that. *How about the data itself There is no mention of the time a father would be doing these jobs. Considering that a working Mom still does almost 2/3s of the time of a stay-at-home Mom, it is not weird to think that a working Dad could be doing these jobs either. and a job shared is a job halved. While this would make the difference between a stay-at-home Mom and a working Mom the same, it would change the value of this result when placed against the point "Being a mom is not the same as having a job". Indeed the very fact that a working Mom still does almost 2/3s of the work of a stay-at-home Mom would counter the idea that being a Mom being the same as having a job as they *do* have a job and can still get most of the work done. For these reasons I think your evidence can be fairly well dismissed as not worth arguing against, not for the numbers given per se, but due mainly to the methods from which the numbers were collected and their purpose.
Except physics (or any of the sciences) is belief built on objective observation of evidence. Belief in a deity is a belief built on assertions and assumptions. Trying to equate the two is disingenuous. "I believe that if I jump off the empire state building I'll die", is not the same level of believing as saying "If I jump off the empire state building, I'll become a ghost."
I know it would have undermined the Republic, but the conflict was so brutal that I have trouble imagining Northerners not having second thoughts. Did Northerners have a great deal of faith in the United States at this point? I know it has been around for a while at this point, but it takes time to form a national identity.
What are the first incidents in written history when a European identified his race as being white and different from those in other continents? I know that Romans had interactions with North Africans, but did they see themselves as being a white race in contrast to others who were not white? Did the Greeks distinguish themselves from any of their neighbours by skin colour?
&gt; No, my argument is that if a piece of information is sold, it will be made available for free. It is inevitable. That does not reconcile the fact that doing so is illegal. It also does not imply that you have any write to that content without agreeing to the creators terms. &gt; And the players also have the choice to pirate it. If a creator chooses to charge for access to information, they are in a de facto pay what you want situation. That's correct, they do have a choice to pirate it. However, this is not a "pay what you want" situation, this is pay "all or nothing." In the context of our examples, paying nothing is not an option proposed by the creator for his content, and thus is illegal. &gt; This is not enforceable without something like SOPA, which violates rights. False, ISPs are able to detect piracy in some cases and take action based on the observations they make. Also, a law not being "enforceable" does not reconcile that fact that it is illegal or immoral. &gt; Labor can be used to produce something of value, however, having performed labor does not mean that value has been produced. Labor does not have intrinsic value. This is an argument of semantics. Under the actual definition of labor, nothing of value has to be produced. That is correct. However, in the context of content creation and specifically our video game developer, the creator created content which he assigned value. You have no right, nor privilege, to change the value that he assigned and acquire his product at your new price. If you don't believe that the product has any value, don't buy the product and don't pirate the product. The fact that you desire a product means it has value. That may mean that you think, "I want that and will pay no more than $5 for it." That may also mean that you choose to pay $60 for it. Sometimes, creators develop something of value that they decide to give away for free. That does not devalue the work of creators who chose not to do that. The only right that you have in that situation is to choose to acquire the free product and let the developers of the more expensive product lose your business.
&gt; Economic power - yes they have less money, but the why of it is important. If you have less money (a difficulty) from doing less difficult things which has you arrive at less money, then it balances out. First, this is false. Pay is not based on the difficulty of the job, it's based on the demand for the job vs. the number of people willing and able to do the job. However, even if difficulty is related to reward, then a lot of the male disadvantage examples are neutral. The counterexamples are all examples of choice. &gt;Shorter life spans Mostly because men have less healthy lifestyles than women. There are fewer limits on their behavior and they get to do more things that they might like to do and that balances out. &gt;War - most soldiers are still men The U.S. hasn't had a draft in a very long time, this is also based on choice. And there are various perks to working in the military. The military pays soldiers, therefore according to your logic, their pay must be proper reward for their work and it balances out. &gt;Physical Labor - often men work more physically demanding and/or dangerous jobs But they must get paid enough to make it worth it, right? So that balances out. &gt;Violence - men are more often the victims and perpetrators of violent crime. Combined with the war factor above, men's lives in general are often just more violent. How is this not based on choice? Still, for every guy that loses a fight there's at least one guy who won, so it balances out.
&gt; What "facts of the matter" do you think could be exposed by religious arguments I suppose arguments on religious matters would be concerned with matters of fact pertaining to religion, like whether God exists or what sacraments are or things like this. &gt; do those facts form a compelling basis for theism? There seems to be some dispute on this issue, although the majority of philosophers are atheists. &gt; I guess I'm asking if the two of you consider yourselves theists, and if so, why. I don't have any position on the matter which is worthwhile discussing here.
&gt; If I am correct in assuming you are a utilitarian of the Common Stripe, does suffering in hell remain immoral if it causes God pleasure within the utilitarian system? It remains immoral from my own point of view. God's point of view isn't really relevant &gt; Why can't God be a utility monster? First, I'm an egoist. As far as utilitarianism goes, utility is evaluated by the utility to me. That it makes God really happy is just none of my concern, unless this also makes me really happy by association, and I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Second, with the way God is defined IMO it's not really meaningful to speak of God' morality. God is explicitly defined as being outside such concerns by being assigned infinite power. In case such a thing exists, the only thing I can speak of meaningfully is my own actions and morality, so God can be disregarded.
Fast food, and all junk food, is [specifically designed](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?_r=0) by food scientists to elicit cravings, and is marketed in ways that tap into other quirks of the human psyche. Those facts *alone* should be enough for you to agree that fast food doesn't *not* have *nothing* to do with obesity rates.
If teachers are poorly paid and given little autonomy, and schools are poorly resourced, then standardized tests are needed for quality control, and by no means a waste of time or resources. You can make the argument that we all should be following the [Finnish model](http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/03/what-finland-can-teach-america-about-education/), in which case the testing would not be needed, but it's a long long way from here to there.
Yes that’s what I got from it as well. No it’s not okay that women get raped, and yes we should address the issue of educating men and any and all kinds of measures to reduce and elimante rape and the permissive culture around it. It’s nothing to do with blaming women, it’s about lowering the instances of sexual assault and rape. That means dealing with the reality of the situation and minimising risk in every reasonable way possible. Yes, it shouldn’t be the way it is, but at the same time, it IS the way it is and change is slow. We can do all the things.
Well if you want to cut her off effectively, talk to your own boyfriend about what you wrote just here. Hopefully he will want to avoid her as much as possible too, and avoid her boyfriend to an extent too, and that will make it all easier. The less forward approach would be: block her on everything just like you said, as soon as she moves out. Then, if you see her in your course, say nothing to her. Just don’t make a deal of saying hello or how are you, just totally ignore her existence. If she happens to come up and say hi, and you want to be polite/less forward, you can say hi back. That’s it, ask her no questions, respond to nothing she says unless she asks a direct question back, and answer with one word. So if she says “how’ve you been” say good then don’t ask her anything. If she talks about her life, just look at her, and if there’s a single point you can walk away to “sit down/talk to teacher/talk to someone else” do so. If she yells at you, or gets upset etc, say nothing, walk away. Basically act like she’s a stranger you don’t want to interact with (and the most you’d say to a stranger like that is hi or good day, or you’d straight up walk away and hope they forget you). If she texts you or talks to a friend to get ahold of you, ignore everything. Give her nothing to get ahold of you, ignore anything that gets to you. She’ll either lose interest or feel like it’s like talking to wind and give up. Ideally, your boyfriend would do mostly this too, so that she loses interest in him and loses any way to bother his life too. The I guess upside to this is, lower effort, and if you get assigned any teamwork together, you never technically were mean to her or said anything outright upsetting. So it will feel more like “friendship that just faded” than “friendship that was ended”. That way if you need to get her to cooperate with you, there’s nothing she can really point to and be mad at. All she could do was be like “ahh this friend got boring and quiet” so we stopped talking. Nothing for her to pick a fight with. The more forward approach, if you are okay with more conflict heavy situations. Text her like you said, if you want. Or don’t. Go to class. If she interacts with you herself, tell her “I don’t want to be friends anymore” then walk away/ignore. This is just a bit more firm, and is clearly communicating why you are not talking to her. In the first option, you don’t bother giving her an explanation and just go straight to cutting her out. She may be more likely to yell or get upset or demand an explanation from you if you do this method. Probably best to ignore her still if she does this, or say “I just don’t want to be friends anymore” again and ignore her. I think either way, I’d move as quickly as possible to “do not interact with at all”. In the past I’ve just ignored people saying hi and how are you too if I was trying to cut them off. I just went to zero interaction. And the only time I spoke to them was short curt answers if we were put together on an assignment like “I’ll do this, this part involves x”. I think depending on how large your classes are, and how many teachers teach your course, you may never have to speak with her again.
This question is inspired by the recent Turkish coup d'etat attempt which involved ~3,000 military personnel, a few tanks and a helicopter. To a lay person, this seems pretty small to take over a country. Have historical coups in Turkey since the 60s and in other parts of the world involved such few numbers? Do they usually result in violence?
As a person who unintentionally talks a little too fast, I began wondering about this question. Why do I talk fast while others may talk slow? Is there any correlation between talking speed and race, intelligence, culture, personality, income or other factors? I'm trying to make sense of talking speed.
I remember my first day driving. They made me get on the freeway, and right before that an old man had turned into oncoming traffic along the access road, whom I had to dodge to not be in my first accident on my first day out... Pay ATTENTION! And truly, truly learn the rules of the road. It will help you and save you.
And yet I live in Scottsdale, Arizona, populated primarily by rich white people, and I get catcalled all of the time, by said rich white men. It is a societal issue for sure, but I feel it has very little to do with socioeconomic status, and more to do with the overall culture of America that permits it to happen by not condemning the behaviour and in many ways promoting it. I would be curious to know what street harassment is like in other cultures and countries, and if its as prevalent as it is in ours.
&gt; Don't consent to searches. ...but if they say they're going to search anyways, don't interfere. In short, follow their instructions at the time, make your lack of consent clear, and fight it later if there's an issue. &gt; I'm not even sure they can search your bag They might be able to. Some bag searches have been held as reasonable; others, not so much.
&gt; I don't have access to any of the information I would need to do this Actually you do; it'll take some searching, but you can do it. You can even quickly approximate if you look at ADP's pay stubs for the last several paychecks they processed for each person, and withhold the same amounts. It'll be off a little, particularly if someone has an unusual case like there's a garnishment that only happens once a month or something; but it'll probably be close. &gt; nor do I have access to the funds needed to pay. Wouldn't the boss be holding the gross amount, and then when you show him the withholding amount, the boss withholds the proper amounts, and then pays the remainder to the employee?
This line of thinking is short-sighted and might actually doom more people in the long run. The only reason any of us have any money to give in the first place is because people are willing to buy the product of our labor. If every dollar went to feed the starving, then no one would be able to justify getting an education or raising the capital to start a business, or produce any goods or services that require resources and infrastructure. Money would cease to have buying power.
So let's throw money at some of the most corrupt governments in the world in hopes that they will decide to stop polluting. On top of that, let's throw money at our economic competitors to pay for them to continue polluting while we hamper our own economy. I just don't think many of you really have thought this through. Yes, you're fighting a noble cause, but there's more than one solution, and the best solution may not be the solution the media is feeding you 24/7. They don't always have your best interests in mind.
If everyone did pay some taxes and had some skin in the game it would be much better for the country as a whole. Almost half the country pays no income tax and many pay Negative income tax - the various refunds and such are actually a source of income for them. It’s far to easy to demand more spending when all of it is paid by others. <PERSON> was onto something there. But we are far far away from any sort of ideal system as discussed by <PERSON>.
I discovered Reddit during the first DIGG invasion. I ignored it at first, but then a few months or years later when <PERSON> died. there was either another invasion or I just happened to stumble upon Reddit while sifting through articles. Seeing a site like Digg, but covered in posts about <PERSON> death was very interesting. I loved the "post DIGG invasion" years on Reddit. When they drove a new meme into the ground they did it with FAR more gusto then Reddit does these days. for 2-3 days straight EVERY SINGLE POST was that meme. And each was fucking hilarious. Yeah it used that meme up pretty quickly... But each one was awesome. Reddit is a much safer and happier place these days... You still have your circle jerks and reverse circle jerks here and there. and a few bad subs. But back then it was nearly a pure circle jerk everywhere. I lost my first 2 accounts. I do not even recall the usernames on them. So somewhere out there is an 8 year old reddit account untouched. A time capsule of myself.
Ah, so it is. I was on my phone earlier and missed it! Looks good then. Make sure to read the instructions on the wireless adapter. A lot of them require you to install the drivers first from the disc and then install the card. It'll save you some headache later on.
Well, hi again! I have to say the Golden Girls are a huge impact on my life as well. Every time a Golden Girl has passed, I feel the hurt. It was a show that I watched with my late mother and still watch to this day. There's a lot of emotion tied into it. It's also a show my dearest best friend and I watched together a lot.
500+ comments and I'm gonna go all <PERSON> here... TL;DR Hi /u/KellyfromLeedsUK, what's the back story here? What are you not telling us? OK, so, /u/KellyfromLeedsUK - I'm guessing you're not from the states but if this entire thing actually happened then I'm guessing it took place in the states. Yes? So, you know how back in Leeds, UK, you can be so paralytic you can be unable to even *see* any more but if you can move your legs you can pretty much crawl home all night without getting arrested? USA ain't like that. Actually, not entirely true; different states and cities have different rules. So it might be useful to know where this happened. Might also be useful to know *what* happened. Cos, and here I'm making assumptions, I've seen how drunk people can be in Leeds, UK. And it's not pretty. It's not an attractive sight. I'd even go so far as to say it can be obnoxious. Was that you? Did you take your Leeds, UK, drinking methodology and apply it elsewhere? Please provide further evidence that your innocence isn't just in your head.
See, OP, the problem with (Original) is that a quick google search can ruin it all. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dickhatership - a submission from 2007 containing basically the same joke. Obviously two people can have the same idea but claiming "original" only makes you that more vulnerable to creepy people googling your joke. Like me. Because it's early in the morning, I had no breakfast yet and I thought "Let's see how original original really is". I will now have breakfast so that I stop wasting time on meaningless stuff and do much more meaningless stuff elsewhere.
Here is how it was fixed all over the world: - Join a union and fight for your rights If you are not willing to do so, I am not willing to feel sorry for you! Edit: I can see people like to live in subpar conditions from the amount of downvotes. Enjoy your miserable lives.
That is not what you said. What you actually said was: &gt; For all our exceptional abilities, we are broken. Anyway my basic point is that you should not presume to speak for others. I will let you know when I am angry. This royal we stuff should be reserved for Queen <PERSON>.
&gt;They're.. forced to take currency? I'm not aware of anything like that. US dollar must be accepted in the US &gt;Some people choose to live under a commune, where they don't use currency, they just exchange goods and services for other goods and services. Do you? &gt;You don't need a government to create currency. I've purchased a lot of goods using bitcoin, which isn't regulated nor created by the government. Next time you go to a store ask if you can pay in bitcoin
&gt;Is money laundering a crime? Yes - you are looking at jail time. http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/canada-anti-money-laundering-and-anti-terrorist-financing-regulations-for-virtual-currencies-to-be-introduced/ http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/act-loi/1-eng.asp &gt;I live in Canada and I have been contacted by someone who wants to buy itunes gift cards and convert to bit coin and I suspect wants to run money through my bank account. So somebody is asking you to allow criminal activity through your bank account. &gt;Is that something can report or is it a waste of time and they will never be caught? You can report, but they will never be caught, most likely. Just cut contact with those people immediately. And whatever you do, NEVER accept those kinds of offers - you will get in legal trouble and likely lose money in the process.
&gt; Can they ask for the money back if they realize their mistake? Yes, and you would be required to repay it, if it's mistaken. Your smart move is to call them and discuss the matter. If it's a mistake, pay back immediately. If it's not, they should be able to explain it. Did you pay first and last month's rent when you moved in? If you paid first and last, and then paid rent every month you lived there, you'd be owed a month back.
Ask whether "all future payments" is for the term of the lease, or forever. If it's for the lease term, and you want to stay, you could ask to renew your lease early and reset that clause. A lawyer won't help you here, but if you do see one, don't be surprised if they don't take a check.
I know this is old, but the problem of requiring* education is giving someone else control over your natural right. What education? who is responsible for the content? what will it entail? what are the pass / fail guidelines? how do you ensure state sponsored education is correct? what if that which is specifically required misses something? I advocate education, but it has to be something internal that you strive to achieve. You can't just pass a "gun class" and expect to be good to go. Who knows what they may teach you.
There's a conflation between having no belief towards a claim, and having no belief in a claim. if someone says "do you have a belief position on theism?" and you say "no, i lack a belief position towards any theistic claim" that would be agnosticism of some form, if someone answers "yes, I lack belief in any theistic claim" that is the atheist position. many people miss this and talk past each other to much to realize the slight difference and it causes much confusion and digression.
&gt;Does he actually have a case to take to court/collections, in your opinion? Yes. You said you'd pay him back for the parts, and then you didn't. &gt;How would it work with us being in different states? He'd most likely need to sue you in your state. &gt;Does the fact that I was a minor and he was an adult when this first started effect anything? It might mean you can void the contract, but that would include giving the computer back to him.
&gt;Well, that 30 day period has long since passed and I don't have any intentions of going to the classes, even though they're free. Why not? Legally they can refund any money you paid for the dog, less their admin costs/etc, and take back the dog. They'll have to sue you for it though.
&gt; I'm all about calling out hypocrisy and double standards, but the truth is that I've never encountered someone who both wore this type of outfit AND had a problem with a passing glance. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; I think you're arguing a bit of a strawman in that case, because these are mostly two exclusive groups of people. I saw this all the time when I worked the bar. It happens regularly. Generally speaking it happens more on a "night out" than in an office because excessive cleavage is usually frowned on in an office. &amp;nbsp; But if you're looking at the overall law of numbers you could make your claim of "those are mostly two exclusive groups of people" about alot of things without being an accurate representation of commonality. But this may not disagree wit Example: People who are black and people who live in the US are mostly two exclusive groups of people. By the numbers this would be correct, roughly 18% of the US is black. But to say it would be uncommon for someone in the US to be black would be quite incorrect. &amp;nbsp; As such I don't believe your argument is a sound one because there could be a significant % of women that wear the outfit AND had a problem with it while still abiding by your assertion. If we say 30% of women wearing high cleavage shirts were bothered by passing glances that would satisfy your assertion and still be quite commonly encountered.
&gt; We are not just Hysterical Females who Can't Take A Compliment overreacting to Nice Guys who just want to make us feel good! Actually I don't really know anything about the motivations of a lot of the catcallers, especially the more negative stuff. It seems like in these conversations you never hear from anyone saying that they are one of those people and explaining themselves. But I don't think you know their motivations either. I do think a lot of what women say on this topic is "hysterical" in the sense that it is a deliberate attempt to present themselves as helpless victims and exaggerate the issue or present it as one of a physical threat. Ironically this is probably because playing the victim gathers male attention for women, and women like to get male attention (and then complain when they get it). I do think women fail to take responsibility for their part in pursuing male attention. I don't deny that the attention can be too much and there is such a thing as getting too much attention as a "sexual celebrity". &gt; Commonly it's a way for a lot of guys to sort of "assert their dominance" in front of other men I suppose it could be. Although from what I understand if a woman is with a man then she is much less likely to have someone catcall her which would seem to argue against that interpretation. I would also say that looking attractive for men and receiving attention from them, is how women play dominance games with each other. &gt; Plenty of men are aware they are making women afraid and they enjoy it That sounds like an expression of prejudice by you. You sound like a White Southerner telling me how some blacks really are lazy good for nothings. It seems to me that if a man wanted to make a woman feel afraid there are more obvious things to say than catcalling. &gt; Sometimes the men actually do think they'll get something out of it - maybe for her to flirt back, or to give him her number, or just acknowledge that we're interested back It seems that catcalling does get men dates if that's what you mean. Obviously not with you, but it does "work" apparently. Again it's hard to say because I haven't seen any real research on it. &gt; What is the point of a compliment if not to make someone feel good? All sort of things I suppose. Philosophically I could say that everyone tries to use each other in some sense and there's maybe nothing wrong with that. Why do people want others to feel good if they don't get something out of that? Your own attitude here is 100% from the perspective of "what do I get out of this?" so if you can be entirely selfish about it why shouldn't any man? &gt; The important distinction is: If a man compliments me and hopes he might get something out of it, that's fine. If a man compliments me and expects something out of me then he's an arrogant asshole who can keep his comments to himself because I didn't ask for it and don't owe him shit. Maybe to the men their own feelings are the important thing, and not your feelings? But back to the catcalling thing. If you could stop getting any attention from men at all, like you would if you were older, would you take that opportunity? It seems to me that for most women the answer is a definite "no". You have a power of sexual celebrity which gets you attention from men (and women - because of women's dominance games being based on how much male attention they can win). That sexual celebrity comes with a price if you have a lot of power. But what woman would give up that power merely to avoid the associated inconvenience? Or again what man would not want that sort of attention from women if he could have it?
In the short form how you cited the argument, I cannot get rid of the feeling that it only exists by premises. *If* everything that begins to exist has a cause and *if* the universe began to exist, *then* the universe has a cause. That's indisputably sound reasoning. But it would be better if the premises were somehow backed up by evidence. I highly doubt premise one, to begin with. Yes, matter and energy get converted all the time, and patterns, perhaps sometimes even new patterns emerge constantly. But this is never something new, something from out of the universe. So, without a shred of evidence, I am wary of making a claim regarding "everything". Regarding premise 2: I think a good definition of *always* would be "there is no point in time, in which X isn't true". If this definition is good, then the universe has always existed. Or, in other words, you can go back as far in time as you want, you will always be in this universe (since time, our time, is a dimension of said universe). I cannot conceive a meaningful definition of before without time, therefor I have trouble stating something like "the universe began to exist", because it implies there is a time before the universe existed, which cannot be, since time is part of the universe.
Given infinite time and attention span, perhaps. But if I am just saying the same thing over and over again, I am wasting your time. That is, if we had all the time in the world to discuss something, then there's no harm in repeating oneself for the sake of clarity. But since we don't, we are spending that time on an old idea instead of moving on to something new. For instance, if I use this paragraph to express the same ideas as the last two, only in different words, maybe you gain *something* additional, but you won't know until you have spent the time to read it, and maybe you won't gain anything. If you aren't in a hurry to read other responses to your question, maybe this is fine. But since you only have finite time to read respond to everyone, I am probably wasting your time at this point. If any parts of the previous four paragraphs were unclear, then more exposition is probably due, but if I had done a good job of explaining myself the first time around, all of these additional paragraphs wouldn't be necessary.
Honestly, at the end of the day, if i were a hero, the only people who would know about me are my loved ones. Because otherwise, all of my family dies because theres always a villian who can crack the governments security in like, 20 seconds. Dont get me wrong, i understand the governments side. If some of my citizens had the ability to take out cities in second by themselves, hell yeah id like to know the name under the mask. edit: On the superman destroying metropolis point, yeah, supes fucked up. That being said, Complete Genocide of the Human race &lt; Metropolis being destroyed
Wull, it really doesn't matter what we think, honestly. Talk it over with the people this actually involves, because at the end of the day, only what you and they agree on is what matters. Bring all of your ideas to the table, and encourage them to bring theirs, and come to a consensus based on what you all want, so as to not create any problems down the road. Now, as for actually giving logistical advice for this: I think 33/33/33 is the way I would go on this, personally. It makes sense for each individual to pull their own weight in the bills, and it puts less pressure on the other party/parties in the event that one, say, loses a job and can't contribute anymore. However, the other party can hold the fact that they contribute to the house more than you, should they be so inclined, and possibly just be real dicks about the whole thing, for example: "We're gonna watch what I want on the TV cuz we pay more", or something along those lines (Granted, that's very much hyperbole and not likely, but still possible). 50/50 would give you equal say, if not more, in what goes on in the house, since you're contributing more than what you feel is fair. But again, what's fair is not for us to decide, it's for the three of you to decide. Unless you all came to an agreement that you would leave the decision up to the internet, there's really no point in asking us in the first place, since we're not involved at all. Talk it over with the couple, and your decision will be clear by that point
I think I should have said "against men by women." I also think the prison rape issue is different, and while it results in men and women being raped roughly equally, fixing the prison issue doesn't have much to do with the societal issue, which is what I'm focusing on. edit: by that, I mean you don't need to change society to keep prisoners from raping each other. Do you you doubt that the vast majority of sexual assaults, including rape, are committed by men and, outside of prison, most of those assaults are committed by men against women? I can try to dig something up, but I didn't expect that claim to be under contention. What I'm about to say is extremely hyperbolic, but it's as though you're asking how I can back up my assertion that the earth is a spheroid.
I guess you'll have to explain the connection between darwinism and eugenics, because I don't see the link. Darwinian evolution is a description of how organisms evolve over time. How does that affect how society is or should be run? I guess, for me, you'd need to make the case that it is connected because I just don't see it.
Peace Corps, TEFL, Thailand. Super fun! Peace Corps is great in that they'll really take care of you while you're there, at least in my experience. There is typically three months of cross-cultural training before you go to your site. I believe they have recently simplified the application process as well.
I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world. The best branch for that would be the Navy.
I think you'd be surprised by the amount of low information people out there who don't pay attention to the news at all. Just look at any of the late night show "man on the street" interviews where they ask people questions you think anyone would know, like "Who is the vice president?" and the people are clueless.
How much more would they have to give if people had their taxes reduced by half and the money given instead to church or community charity? My point is basically the federal government is good at very specific things, and stopping and preventing poverty is not one of them.
If the car is running and you hit the lock button from the inside all the doors lock including the drivers door but then a second later the drivers door unlocks. i am not sure if i use the remote when the car is running if all the doors will lock and stay locked. the delay between the doors locking then the driver door unlocking is nice because you can hear it unlock and know its unlocked instead of believing all the doors are locked. we were in a sketchy part of town around 1 or 2am and i had to make a stop someplace, i left the car running and when i left my passenger hit the lock button then heard the driver door unlock its self. there is probably a setting to go through and turn that feature off, but i also have a dog and when she sees me coming to the car gets excited jumps all over the window and lock controls. EDIT: i usually have a gun on me so i am not too concerned about anyone trying to car jack me.
I am like this with some of my friends, they will want to come visit, but only end up 2 hours messaging someone privately. if people visit me or i visit them then its not to much to ask to use your phone for SMS/calls only. not playing games and chatting to people over phone.
The conclusions that were *presented* to me were that one outcome, heaven, would transform me in such a manner, and the other, hell, would not, but merely be extremely unpleasant. Given these options, my preference is clear. The conclusion that I *jump* to is that neither exists. I am only dealing with ridiculous suppositions as they are presented to me.
100% certainty is impossible. Defining gnosticism as 100% certainty, then, is to make it unusable. We should not define words in ways which make them unusable. Gnosticism, therefore, must mean some degree of certainty less than 100%. The complete lack of evidence for any gods allows me to reasonably reach that degree of certainty that they do not exist.