... *sigh*... okay, then how is this different from a riot?
I think you're just latching on to insurrection because it has fewer negative connotations which is basically linguistic pathos. I find this type of meaningless rhetoric to be counter productive.
A thing is what a thing is indifferent to whatever you call it. I can call something great a pile of shit or I can call a pile of shit something great... it is still going to be itself.
I find no positive or redeeming qualities in this "incident" nor do I find the participants in it to be someone I can sympathize with. I can empathize with anything. I can empathize with a monster if I want. But sympathy? This was stupid.
You have the King family amongst others citing the whole thing as counter productive.
Defending a riot accomplishes nothing. This "insurrection" as you wish to style it has no value or meaning.
Whether or not the police were even guilty of anything is still debatable. And for the sake of argument if they were blameless, consider the moral and ethical consequences to your "insurrection" if it acted without provocation or justification OF ANY KIND.
Frankly, I think you're sticking your dick in a moral garbage disposal and flipping the switch. It won't end well.
Psychology can be a real science though. It just has to preform experiments and limit its theorizing to the data.
Furthermore, statistical data is vastly over used and really should be reduced radically in its application. Especially data that is mined from other studies and re-appropriated for other purposes. The mishandling of statistics is something I think we've all seen and I'm sick of it.
That's a struggle for anyone that wants to organize a protest.
Look at the protests put on my MLK jr. He was a big fan of sit ins for example. He'd have all his people sit down somewhere and then King would lead them in a prayer or a sermon or something. And anyone standing up and acting crazy was understood to not be part of his protest.
What is more, if anything crazy started to happen, he would tell his people to go home immediately.
His family has actually been very outspoken in these latest racial issues. Ferguson and Baltimore got responses from the King family and they said in both situation that the protesters should have gone home or organized very differently because the whole thing is indistinguishable from a riot which is counter productive.
If someone is providing "material support" to terrorists then fuck them. Lets say Osama bin ladin is living in my house and I know it is him... and I and feeding him and giving him cover. That is an example of material support. If you're doing that... then allow me to say on behalf of the American people, that you can eat all the fucking dicks.
Exactly why is this a bad thing? I don't get it. Someone explain this to me?
Does material support not mean what I think it means? I don't understand.
I was in error actually. The system contains a lot of extra stuff that I hadn't accounted for such as inverters and controllers which more than account for the price difference. And they're also offering a 10 year warranty which is huge.
This condition of gay marriage is meaningless. The man wasn't married to the woman either so marriage is not relevant. We are concerned with relationships. And the lesbian woman was in a relationship with her partner at conception. The man was not.
That is a matter of record and fact. *slaps gavel down*
As to Sherri Shepherd she was married. We're discussing issues where there is no marriage. We both agree that when a marriage exists liability for the child is mutual.
As to your point that a donor can come in to the bank, explain to me why the napkin agreement is not of equivalent value? You say because there is some sort of employment net worth check? There is no net worth requirement for giving birth in this country. Any woman on welfare can get knocked up by a man on welfare. What is more, we are currently accepting millions of desperately poor illegal immigrants into this society that are all qualifying for welfare... often at the state level but some are getting it at the federal level as well. For example, you can claim dependents out of the country. You get a federal tax credit PER dependent and some illegal will cite 30 children in another country that are dependent on them. That means they can get the per child tax credit times 30. In that context, I don't have any patience for any presumption of frugality because the entire system is not set up to be frugal but to dispense as much government cheese as possible.
As to your stipulation that I should inform myself of the existing laws, there is no point you've offered that has materially changed my position. All you're saying when you say I should look at the law is that I should inform myself with the status quo. I am aware of it actually. None of your corrections have been materially different from my assumptions. You keep offering distinctions without meaning and then expecting me to change everything and accept the status quo as the ultimate good. It is tautology. Your entire premise is that "this is good because this is the law" which ignores that the law can be stupid. And given that my entire premise was that the law is stupid, your entire position makes no fucking sense.
No, an insurrection requires an intention to subvert the government and take over as the new rulling authority.
Are you suggesting that the rioters in Baltimore thought they were going to replace the government of Baltimore and the existing political and legal system?
If not, then there is no insurrection. You need to have the intention to take over for it to be an insurrection.
This was just a riot. A riot has no specific intentions. Just chaos.
1. As to collective punishment, you are conflating keeping order with punishment. This is your first error. Punishment would require a court of law, a judge, a trial, a sentence... none of these things is happening so there is no punishment happening here. When I tell someone to put the gun down or I'll shoot... I am not punishing them. I am protecting the peace, order, and safety of the community. I am not judging the person to be guilty of anything. I am judging rather that they are a danger to the peace and safety and order of the area and as a law enforcement officer I have not only a right but an obligation to maintain those things.
If you've got a mob running around tipping over cars, setting stuff on fire, killing people, looting shops... my obligation is to stop that. I can't get in there and just extract the worst elements of the crowd. I have to dispurse the crowd as much as possible stripping the mob down to the core. Then that core can be dealt with using more extreme measures.
My suggested order of operations was this:
First, warn the crowd what is going to happen. That will remove a lot of people that don't want to get hit with tear gas etc. Second, I hit them with tear gas once people have had some time to leave. This will dispurse the crowd further because they know arrests are coming next. It also puts anyone that wants to stay on their knees which means I can deal with them without hurting them. Third, anyone that wants to stay despite being tear gassed is likely a serious problem maker and I'm going to zip tie them and throw them in a meat wagon. Fourth, they may not even be tried for a crime. I'll have them in the police holding cells and from there I can go through the group and try to do a final sort of the people. Most of them I won't have any real evidence against besides they were there. I'll let all of those people go with no criminal record. If I have evidence that any of them did something specifically against the law... then I'll pass that on to the courts for trial.
This is entirely reasonable.
2. As to five minutes, I disagree that five minutes is a short amount of time if you actually listen to what I am saying and just go. If you want me to extend that to 10 minutes then so be it. But this isn't a sports stadium we're clearing but rather a street. I've been in riot situations before and you can totally leave the area of the riot in 5 minutes if you want to because the riot has three zones. It has the place where people are currently acting crazy, it has the area they've already ruined, and it has the area they're about to ruin.
The police need to stand in front of the area they're going to ruin. That is in zone 3. And confront zone 1 which is the place that is currently being ruined. You can retreat from the police by going to zone 2 quite easily and you won't get gassed there if you listen to my warning and go. Once you're in zone 2 you can leave the area entirely at your leisure. I can't gas the entirity of zones 1 and 2 at once. I will start by gasing zone 1. All you have to do to avoid being gased is leave zone 1. We're talking about a one to two block area directly in front of the police riot line. Five minutes is plenty of time.
Ten minutes is very near to procrastination. I'm not especially interested in letting the people acting crazy to have more time to break stuff. I want to put pressure on them as quickly as possible. I would be within my rights to give them NO time at all. Just immediately gas them on sight with no warning at all.
Giving them 5 minutes is a kindness and it saves me having to deal with people that would have just left. After 5 minutes, if you are still right in front of my riot line... You're getting tear gassed. And if you don't run away while that is happening... You're getting zip tied and throw in the meat wagon. Whether any of that leads to a trial is up to later investigation and not my problem.
The point is to break the riot immediately. Not to punis
They generally don't put people on lots of smaller planes if they have bigger planes they can fill. I don't know what you're talking about.
Sometimes they might run out of the big planes and then they'll retask the smaller ones. But the bigger planes are much more efficient on a per passenger level for fuel economy.
Do you want me to quote engineering specs at you for these planes or do you want to concede that I am correct and stop contradicting people that are right?
I just did a price check and a 10kwh rolls royce deep cycle system with 4 of those batteries is about 1500 USD. Tesla wants 3000 to 3500. At that price, I could buy 20kwh to 30kwh in conventional lead acid batteries.
The primary advantage of the Lithium batteries is that they're light. But in a static location what is the point of them? Who cares how much the batteries weigh if they never get moved? They sit in a utility closet somewhere in your house and that's it. I'm really confused as to why anyone would pay DOUBLE for Teslas batteries?
Am I missing something? Why would I pay TWICE as much per kilowatt hour?
What is more, deep cycle lead acid batteries can be reconditioned giving them a second life. I don't think you can do that with lithium batteries.
I had despaired that psychology could ever pull its head out of his own ass. But if they start actually doing real science again then the field might actually be saved.
It had gotten so bad that I just assumed that the neurologists would have to deal with all this stuff from the other side. Answer the psychology questions with neurology science.
Psychology has become something of a joke lately and there is no way to fix it short of subjecting it to cold empirical science.
What incentive does the woman have to get around the child support laws? Why would she sign the napkin if that's what she wanted? Certainly it be more in her interests to hold that man accountable would it not?
And lets say she gets a sperm donation from the sperm bank, how is the state in a better position when she goes on welfare or asks for subsidies? You can't get child support from the father because your sperm bank rules preclude that. So what are you actually accomplishing when you do that?
All you're really doing is giving the woman less control over whom she gets the sperm from and making her pay extra money to a doctor to squirt the sperm into her. How does that make it better?
Keep in mind that many sperm banks have been caught lying about where they got their sperm. Sometimes there is only one donor in the sperm bank. All sperm coming from ONE guy and that guy works for the sperm bank. I think there was a janitor or something for one of these places and he replaced all the sperm in the bank with his sperm and got away with it for years and years. I think they estimated he had a total of four or five hundred children. Which would put his fertility at roughly what Genghis Khan had. And this has happened more than once. What is more, even when that isn't happening the quality of the sperm is often exaggerated. It is often a very normal person that is donating their sperm and not some uberman which is generally what women ask for when they ask for sperm. The thing is that ubermen generally don't donate their sperm to sperm banks because they're too busy having sex with the entire cheerleading team... at once. Who wants to masturbate into a cup when you can a harem fighting over the privilege to stick your dick in the relevant hole?
So lets say you find a guy that has the genes you want. You approuch him and say "I just want your sperm"... how do we handle this contract in a way that works for you?
Can the man deposit his sperm in the bank and then have her with draw his personal sperm? If not, then you're circumscribing her ability to choose where her sperm comes from. This notion that if you go to the bank you have to accept the sperm lottery is absurd. If I bought eggs from an egg bank, I'd want to see some pictures of the woman that donated them. Very revealing pictures. Not to fab to furiously... but to judge her genetic value. If I'm going to buy an egg, I'd like to know what I'm buying. If it is some dumpy bucktoothed horse hybrid... why would I pick that egg when what I wanted was the most ideal female egg I could get my hands on?
And women are the same way in this situation. They want the best sperm they can get. They don't want just ANY sperm. They can get any sperm from anyone. They go to the sperm bank to get excellent sperm. But there is no excellent sperm in the sperm bank.
There have even been some sperm banks that supposedly specialized in elite sperm. They said they got it from graduate students in good standing in college and successful athletes etc. But most of those have been found to be fraudulent because the reality is that they can't high quality guys to donate sperm. You either have to pay them more than women are willing to pay for it. Or you have to accept "okay" sperm at best... if not just random sperm from anyone.
You say you're stopping people from getting around paternity laws by doing things this way... but I don't see how your policy is serving any purpose. Why do you need to hold people to paternity laws in the first place if you're okay with a woman getting random sperm shot into her by a sperm bank and then providing child support to her at the state's expense? How is society better off when a woman gets sperm from a bank rather then some guy she knows?
What is the net difference? Because from what I can see, you've accomplished nothing in the state's interest by forcing them to go to the sperm bank. Explain it to me.
Flash mobs are organized on social media... if you do a riot the same way then... sure, if you monitor the whole fucking internet like skynet or something then you might be able to predict a riot.
However, here is a better idea... when a riot starts... How about you actually send the actual police to the actual disturbance and stop it before it gets completely out of control.
It is really not that hard. You get the police out there with a megaphone and you say "you have a right to peacefully protest so long as you do not obstruct traffic or businesses. Be peaceful and respectful of the community and you are welcome here. If however there is vandalism, intimidation, or other illegal activity, the police will break the up the crowd by any means. You have been warned."
Then have the police there with tear gas and gas masks and a meat wagon. If the protest is peaceful like an MLK protest, then leave them alone because they're not hurting anyone. If however they pull a Rodney King, Katrina, Frugison, Baltimore type riot... then you say over the megaphone "We are not dispursing the crowd as members of the crowd have begun vandalizing property etc. Leave the area if you do not live here and if you do live here then go home. You have five minutes to dispurse"
Anyone that doesn't want to choke on tear gas is going to leave right then and there. Those that remain get to eat tear gas. And while they're on all fours vomiting up their breakfast, the police can come in with gas masks, zip tie everyone that decided to stay, and cart them all away in the meat wagons.
No one gets hurt. Property damage is kept to a minimum. Everyone is warned of what is going to happen before it happens. No one is subjected to the tear gas without being given an option to not be hit with tear gas. And the riot is stopped cold.
The looting and lawlessness that is typical of riots happens because there is a break down in order. You do not solve that problem by backing off and letting the whole area turn into Mad Max. You stop it by going in there and laying down the law.
I am NOT advocating brutality or infringing anyone's rights. You do not have a right to riot any more then one person all by himself doesn't have the right to walk around throwing bricks through windows. You don't inherent rights in a mob that you don't have by yourself. If you don't have the right to tip cars over whenever you feel like it then you don't have the right to do it in a mob simply because a lot of people are doing it with you.
The gas is largely harmless. We subject our own soldiers to tear gas in basic training. If it actually caused any lasting harm to anyone then we wouldn't do that. The gas will also break up all but the most die hard members of the riot. Ideally you want as many people to leave the area on their own without requiring the police to deal with each individual person.
That leaves the core of the riot. And those people tend to have long criminal records, be mostly interested in exploiting the chaos to steal, and are generally people that society rarely suffers from having in jail.
I was in Los Angeles during the King riots. And the same stupid thing happened in LA that happened in Baltimore. You do NOT give the riot space or assume that it will just burn itself out if you leave it alone. It is as likely to turn into the Lord of the Flies in there as anything else. They're more likely to eat each other than they are to calm down on their own.
What is so sad is that modern police in the 21st century are failing to do something that the average city guard throughout history had no trouble handling.
It isn't rocket science. Let the police do their jobs and the riot will be over before it starts.
As to who is asking for traditional gender roles to change... feminists.
As to your citation of some mean tweets being evidence that there is a serious political campaign advocating harm against women... that makes no sense.
I tell people to stick a shotgun in their mouths and blow raspberry jam all over their walls all the time. Am I ACTUALLY advocating murder or even suicide? Not really... it is just an internet diss. Citing an internet diss as evidence of actual real world hate is naive.
You cite all this stuff from gaming for some reason. I'm not quite understanding why. For one thing, in games you tell people to die all the time. You get raging 10 year olds that can't handle getting owned and then they rage at you.
What is more, I distinctly remember seeing some woman in a news article claiming that she was raped because someone crotch humped her in a video game.
Everyone gets crotch humped in video games and no one is raped as a result of that. It is a joke and a dig that happens when you lose. I shot you in the face in the game... so I get to crotch hump you. You were not raped. It is a game. If you can't handle something the average 10 year old can handle... then I can't help you.
As to MRAs... I'm not an MRA. Is anyone that argues against capitalism a communist? By your binary logic anyone that has a problem with any bit of feminism must be an MRA. That is irrational.
What is more, I saw some statistics recently that showed that women that self identify as feminists in the United States are in the MINORITY... so you're not even speaking for a majority of women.
I saw that Emma Watson speech to the UN and she starts it by saying "feminists have this reputation of being man haters"... That was pretty much the only honest thing she said in the speech. And the reputation is largely accepted by men and women.
If your position on feminism is that you believe in equality, then rejoice... nearly everyone believes in equality including myself. If you ask for MORE than equality, then you're going to have to make an argument for special treatment. And any special treatment you get is going to come with a price. No one gets special treatment without having to pay for it. For example, children... they have limited liability. The price? They have limited rights.
That is the bargain you're going to have to make if you want MORE than equality.
Here is going to be the real killer problem you're going to have with me though... I'm hyper logical. Your appeals to shame, your conflation of divergent concepts, and your various attempts to use identity politics are meaningless to me. I turn everything you say into symbolic logic as effortlessly as I breath. And any logical error or contradiction sticks out like 1+1= 8.4.
You want me to be a man? Okay. Then like a man, I challenge you to defend your position with what wits you have. And when you fail because I'm smarter than you, I will rub your defeat in your face, claim dominance over you... And probably treat you like my gimp here after.
Is that what you want? You tell me the rules, sport and I'll play by them. Any rules you like. You want to play the victim? I can play a better victim then you if I want. I can cry on command. I did a lot of theater in school and one of my teachers taught the whole class how to cry on command. I still know how to do it.
Want to play who can cite more shit they found on the intenet? I know how to use google, my friend. It ain't hard.
You want to have an intellectual contest of wits and reason? I am your fucking huckleberry if you want to challenge me there.
You want me to be a "man"... what does that mean to you? Because when yous say that you then infer that real men bend over and take it in the ass. Since when is that how real men behave? Real men, so far as I was taught are assertive, personally responsible, and not afraid to challenge rivals for power, credibility, and authority. So... I am a real man in that sense. But if you want me to play your g
As to why the kansas law works the way it does, your reasoning doesn't explain why a napkin agreement would be equally valid. You're saying you want to make sure the parties agree with what is happening... that is what the napkin establishes. I rest my case.
As to enforcing contracts, it is the state that collects the child support... so the only way you could not enforce the contract is to do nothing. If you take any action you're doing something.
Your position is a contract neither party signed is more valid than one that they both signed. That's absurd.
As to consulting a lawyer, the law has an obligation to be self consistent and there are a lot of court cases won on the basis that a given law operates differently than other laws in a similar context for no apparent reason. This notion that the law can be whatever and get a lawyer to explain it to you is tautology. You're saying the law is valid and reasonable because it is the law. As if any and all laws must be valid and reasonable if they are law. We can both name many laws to each other that were later determined to be unreasonable and stuck down. To say nothing of many existing laws that are held in low repute by nearly everyone.
As to trickery, you have intent. You have the agreement of the lesbians. Why would you go after the guy that donated his sperm instead of the woman that committed to her partner when she got pregnant? If anyone should be expected to pay child support, it is that woman.
That is the PROGRESSIVE response, is it not? I am acknowledging their relationship... which doesn't require a marriage to be actionable for child support because men are held accountable for child support without marriage all the time. Men have even been held accountable for child support when they didn't even conceive the child.
Say I am married to a woman and she cheats on me with my best friend... I divorce her because she really hurt my feelings... the law generally is going to make ME pay for the baby even though it was my asshole friend that knocked up my wife. By that standard, the relationship trumps whomever squirted his juice into her baby maker.
What you are furthermore acknowledging here is that the issue is confused and not very well adapted to the situations I'm throwing at you. What you don't understand is that your point that it is confused supports my position that the laws are antiquated. Restrict what is possible and permissible to the traditional gender roles, medical realities etc and the existing laws are quite reasonable. The problem is that those conditions are not a given and therefore cannot be assumed.
As to statistics, I don't take statistics seriously unless I understand how they're taken and have audited the methodology of the statistic. I've seen too many bullshit statistics over the years to take any stat at face value unless it is very very simple and the methodology is effectively raw.
If there is any filtering or analysis in the statistic then I need to audit that.
So, how are they arriving at these numbers exactly?
I actually clicked on those links associated with that wiki page and found this in the Excel file:
""The food consumption refers to the amount of food available for human consumption as estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets. However the actual food consumption may be lower than the quantity shown as food availability depending on the magnitude of wastage and losses of food in the household, e.g. during storage, in preparation and cooking, as plate-waste or quantities fed to domestic animals and pets, thrown or given away.""
That was something I found in the first 10 seconds of checking on this thing. So... your stats are already questionable because they're not even measuring consumption. I knew they couldn't possibly be because how could you possibly measure that? Are you sitting at my dinner table?
Anyway, the UN links on the wiki page are dead short of that excel file. That's not good. And the hunger map doesn't actually address the US at all. The US is cited as "not assessed" on that map.
Basically I think you're trying to turn the availability of food in my country into something we should be ashamed of... which is kind of funny. Nothing new though, we get blamed for being rich, and powerful. Why not blame us for being able to feed ourselves as well? I mean... lets just go completely Orwellian on this and say that Famine is Bounty or something.
Too funny.:D
I ignored your stats before because stats are so frequently bullshit that I tend to just ignore them by default. But if you want to poke me and force me to rip them to fucking shreds... so be it. *yawn*
As to just eating less, the human body doesn't respond well to that scenario. It slows the metabolism down, causes the body to shed muscle mass, and sends various evolutionary signals that you might be suffering through famine like conditions. Which means the body will ramp your energy levels down, prioritize fat creation, and generally make you into a fat piece of shit.
The best way to not be fat is to have an active metabolism. You don't need to be an Olympic athlete. You do need to have enough activity to keep the system running. If you stop moving and start eating fewer calories than you burn just by sitting on your ass... your body is going to assume you're in a famine and trigger all the emergency famine responses.
Understand WHAT you are... you are a product of millions of years of evolution. Understand that evolution is the silent partner in all these situations. What is the perspective of evolution in this situation?
Human beings having lots of food, doing nothing physically, and not being at any risk of ever running out of food is unprecedented in our genetic history. So our DNA is not going to read this situation accurately.
We don't fail to build muscle because the body NEEDS us to move to build muscle. We build muscle because we send an evolutionary signal to our bodies that we NEED the muscle and so energy is directed to build and maintain that muscle.
Genetically there is no reason why you couldn't have an eight pack without any exercise at all. You don't get that because the body doesn't like to waste resources on things that are not being used. That is all exercise really does in most cases. It communicates to the body that certain things are needed.
As to you not seeing the feminists, a man that sticks his head up his ass won't see the sun rise in the morning either. Everyone sees them but you. You are in the minority here.
Pop open the paper and how many articles are going to be feminists asking for things versus men asking for things from women? It is night and day.
As to emma watson, the video of it was put on the internet. You're not going to make the creationist argument are you? Because... this "were you there" argument is the same one they use when they want to claim the world is 6000 years old. Its a stupid argument.
As to "manbabies" this is an interesting double standard and rather funny attempt to enforce traditional gender roles. On the one hand you want gender roles to change but on the other you are telling men to "man up".
You can't have it both ways, chuck. If you want men to be sensitive and vulnerable... willing to cry... and share their feelings... then you need to not tell them they're man babies whenever they point out that the system is in some respects biased against them.
The mindless hypocrisy on these issues is half disappointing and half flattering. Because it reveals that there are a lot of stupid people out there which is sad... but on the bright side I'm not one of them, which is awesome.
As to projection, the difference is that I can validate the claim where as you'll probably start to sputter after inferring it.
As to raping and killing women, this is just idiotic strawman... who is advocating that? Are the MRA's you're so afraid of advocating the rape and murder of women? Are they standing up and saying "rape is awesome and we should do more of it!"... or is that just a rather pathetic strawman mixed with a hyperbole chaser?
Rhetorical question... you know what you did there... you drew a face on your ass... then pulled your pants down, opened your asshole, and made shit come out of the mouth your drew on your butt. You are speaking... shit. Your argument is so comically bad that it could be genuinely funny if you weren't actually serious. And that just makes it sad.
The problem with your theory is that the primary cost to airlines IS fuel and they set up those routing systems to maximize the fuel economy of the whole network.
The issue is the big jumbo jets when full of passengers are pretty much as efficient as it gets. Planes get less efficient per person as they get smaller.
So the concept is that you have small planes FULL of people traveling to the nearest hub, then you have as many people as possible moved from Hub to Hub via a jumbo jet. And then finally you have any final leg of the trip handled by a smaller plane.
The per person fuel economy would be lower if you had a small plane go directly from point A to point B over a long distance.
Again, as evidence, the airlines cite fuel as their largest operating cost and it is in their interest to maximize the per passenger fuel economy because that translates directly into per passenger profit.
The market is really quite good at managing these things. I don't know why people have such little confidence in it. You can see the effect of the market in streamlining things throughout our economy all the time.
... yeah, we can't continue this discussion because you're just an endless stream of strawmen. I've tried really hard but you start every post with a bullshit premise and then force me to spend half my next post correcting your bullshit.
Quote the bit were I said that statutory rape is the same thing as rape period or there is no reason why the concept shouldn't have its own legal term.
That quote doesn't exist which renders the initial portion of your post bullshit.
Hmmm... given that feminists are widely regarded by both men and women to be pretty whiny. I don't see where you get the moral authority to complain about someone else complaining?
Lets say some feminist came on and talked about whatever got her panties in a bind and I responded with something about her "incessant whinning and pants-pissing" about the evil men that are spoiling everything?
Would you accept that as a valid response or would you contradict your position and view that differently?
Whether or not you would, I see feminists talking about stuff all the time without anyone slapping them down openly... didn't Emma Watson make some speech to the UN recently? Who is whining here? Look at the newspapers and count how many of the articles are pushing a pro feminism position versus anything pushing some moderation on the issue? Its night and day.
What I find with these sorts of judgements like the one you just offered, is that they are almost always projection. That is... the comment is more rationally applied to the people making the comment rather than against their target.
Slashdot Mirror
... *sigh*... okay, then how is this different from a riot?
I think you're just latching on to insurrection because it has fewer negative connotations which is basically linguistic pathos. I find this type of meaningless rhetoric to be counter productive.
A thing is what a thing is indifferent to whatever you call it. I can call something great a pile of shit or I can call a pile of shit something great... it is still going to be itself.
I find no positive or redeeming qualities in this "incident" nor do I find the participants in it to be someone I can sympathize with. I can empathize with anything. I can empathize with a monster if I want. But sympathy? This was stupid.
You have the King family amongst others citing the whole thing as counter productive.
Defending a riot accomplishes nothing. This "insurrection" as you wish to style it has no value or meaning.
Whether or not the police were even guilty of anything is still debatable. And for the sake of argument if they were blameless, consider the moral and ethical consequences to your "insurrection" if it acted without provocation or justification OF ANY KIND.
Frankly, I think you're sticking your dick in a moral garbage disposal and flipping the switch. It won't end well.
The NSA thought the same thing and has found it to be more complicated than that.
Psychology can be a real science though. It just has to preform experiments and limit its theorizing to the data.
Furthermore, statistical data is vastly over used and really should be reduced radically in its application. Especially data that is mined from other studies and re-appropriated for other purposes. The mishandling of statistics is something I think we've all seen and I'm sick of it.
Doesn't matter.
That's a struggle for anyone that wants to organize a protest.
Look at the protests put on my MLK jr. He was a big fan of sit ins for example. He'd have all his people sit down somewhere and then King would lead them in a prayer or a sermon or something. And anyone standing up and acting crazy was understood to not be part of his protest.
What is more, if anything crazy started to happen, he would tell his people to go home immediately.
His family has actually been very outspoken in these latest racial issues. Ferguson and Baltimore got responses from the King family and they said in both situation that the protesters should have gone home or organized very differently because the whole thing is indistinguishable from a riot which is counter productive.
If someone is providing "material support" to terrorists then fuck them. Lets say Osama bin ladin is living in my house and I know it is him... and I and feeding him and giving him cover. That is an example of material support. If you're doing that... then allow me to say on behalf of the American people, that you can eat all the fucking dicks.
Exactly why is this a bad thing? I don't get it. Someone explain this to me?
Does material support not mean what I think it means? I don't understand.
I was in error actually. The system contains a lot of extra stuff that I hadn't accounted for such as inverters and controllers which more than account for the price difference. And they're also offering a 10 year warranty which is huge.
Thank you, that does substantially change my impression of the system.
The ten year warranty is also pretty impressive. Thank you. :)
This condition of gay marriage is meaningless. The man wasn't married to the woman either so marriage is not relevant. We are concerned with relationships. And the lesbian woman was in a relationship with her partner at conception. The man was not.
That is a matter of record and fact. *slaps gavel down*
As to Sherri Shepherd she was married. We're discussing issues where there is no marriage. We both agree that when a marriage exists liability for the child is mutual.
As to your point that a donor can come in to the bank, explain to me why the napkin agreement is not of equivalent value? You say because there is some sort of employment net worth check? There is no net worth requirement for giving birth in this country. Any woman on welfare can get knocked up by a man on welfare. What is more, we are currently accepting millions of desperately poor illegal immigrants into this society that are all qualifying for welfare... often at the state level but some are getting it at the federal level as well. For example, you can claim dependents out of the country. You get a federal tax credit PER dependent and some illegal will cite 30 children in another country that are dependent on them. That means they can get the per child tax credit times 30. In that context, I don't have any patience for any presumption of frugality because the entire system is not set up to be frugal but to dispense as much government cheese as possible.
As to your stipulation that I should inform myself of the existing laws, there is no point you've offered that has materially changed my position. All you're saying when you say I should look at the law is that I should inform myself with the status quo. I am aware of it actually. None of your corrections have been materially different from my assumptions. You keep offering distinctions without meaning and then expecting me to change everything and accept the status quo as the ultimate good. It is tautology. Your entire premise is that "this is good because this is the law" which ignores that the law can be stupid. And given that my entire premise was that the law is stupid, your entire position makes no fucking sense.
No, an insurrection requires an intention to subvert the government and take over as the new rulling authority.
Are you suggesting that the rioters in Baltimore thought they were going to replace the government of Baltimore and the existing political and legal system?
If not, then there is no insurrection. You need to have the intention to take over for it to be an insurrection.
This was just a riot. A riot has no specific intentions. Just chaos.
Okay, lets go through your list.
1. As to collective punishment, you are conflating keeping order with punishment. This is your first error. Punishment would require a court of law, a judge, a trial, a sentence... none of these things is happening so there is no punishment happening here. When I tell someone to put the gun down or I'll shoot... I am not punishing them. I am protecting the peace, order, and safety of the community. I am not judging the person to be guilty of anything. I am judging rather that they are a danger to the peace and safety and order of the area and as a law enforcement officer I have not only a right but an obligation to maintain those things.
If you've got a mob running around tipping over cars, setting stuff on fire, killing people, looting shops... my obligation is to stop that. I can't get in there and just extract the worst elements of the crowd. I have to dispurse the crowd as much as possible stripping the mob down to the core. Then that core can be dealt with using more extreme measures.
My suggested order of operations was this:
First, warn the crowd what is going to happen. That will remove a lot of people that don't want to get hit with tear gas etc.
Second, I hit them with tear gas once people have had some time to leave. This will dispurse the crowd further because they know arrests are coming next. It also puts anyone that wants to stay on their knees which means I can deal with them without hurting them.
Third, anyone that wants to stay despite being tear gassed is likely a serious problem maker and I'm going to zip tie them and throw them in a meat wagon.
Fourth, they may not even be tried for a crime. I'll have them in the police holding cells and from there I can go through the group and try to do a final sort of the people. Most of them I won't have any real evidence against besides they were there. I'll let all of those people go with no criminal record. If I have evidence that any of them did something specifically against the law... then I'll pass that on to the courts for trial.
This is entirely reasonable.
2. As to five minutes, I disagree that five minutes is a short amount of time if you actually listen to what I am saying and just go. If you want me to extend that to 10 minutes then so be it. But this isn't a sports stadium we're clearing but rather a street. I've been in riot situations before and you can totally leave the area of the riot in 5 minutes if you want to because the riot has three zones. It has the place where people are currently acting crazy, it has the area they've already ruined, and it has the area they're about to ruin.
The police need to stand in front of the area they're going to ruin. That is in zone 3. And confront zone 1 which is the place that is currently being ruined. You can retreat from the police by going to zone 2 quite easily and you won't get gassed there if you listen to my warning and go. Once you're in zone 2 you can leave the area entirely at your leisure. I can't gas the entirity of zones 1 and 2 at once. I will start by gasing zone 1. All you have to do to avoid being gased is leave zone 1. We're talking about a one to two block area directly in front of the police riot line. Five minutes is plenty of time.
Ten minutes is very near to procrastination. I'm not especially interested in letting the people acting crazy to have more time to break stuff. I want to put pressure on them as quickly as possible. I would be within my rights to give them NO time at all. Just immediately gas them on sight with no warning at all.
Giving them 5 minutes is a kindness and it saves me having to deal with people that would have just left. After 5 minutes, if you are still right in front of my riot line... You're getting tear gassed. And if you don't run away while that is happening... You're getting zip tied and throw in the meat wagon. Whether any of that leads to a trial is up to later investigation and not my problem.
The point is to break the riot immediately. Not to punis
They generally don't put people on lots of smaller planes if they have bigger planes they can fill. I don't know what you're talking about.
Sometimes they might run out of the big planes and then they'll retask the smaller ones. But the bigger planes are much more efficient on a per passenger level for fuel economy.
Do you want me to quote engineering specs at you for these planes or do you want to concede that I am correct and stop contradicting people that are right?
Sorry... I find that annoying. :D
I just did a price check and a 10kwh rolls royce deep cycle system with 4 of those batteries is about 1500 USD. Tesla wants 3000 to 3500. At that price, I could buy 20kwh to 30kwh in conventional lead acid batteries.
The primary advantage of the Lithium batteries is that they're light. But in a static location what is the point of them? Who cares how much the batteries weigh if they never get moved? They sit in a utility closet somewhere in your house and that's it. I'm really confused as to why anyone would pay DOUBLE for Teslas batteries?
Am I missing something? Why would I pay TWICE as much per kilowatt hour?
What is more, deep cycle lead acid batteries can be reconditioned giving them a second life. I don't think you can do that with lithium batteries.
Help me understand. This makes no sense to me.
Here is a link to what I'm looking at as competition:
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/...
How are the tesla batteries better than that for this application?
I had despaired that psychology could ever pull its head out of his own ass. But if they start actually doing real science again then the field might actually be saved.
It had gotten so bad that I just assumed that the neurologists would have to deal with all this stuff from the other side. Answer the psychology questions with neurology science.
Psychology has become something of a joke lately and there is no way to fix it short of subjecting it to cold empirical science.
Your submission to my awesomeness is noted. I shall now be a man and draw a portrait of my dong on your forehead.
Hold still, this will be over in a moment...
Good day. :P
What incentive does the woman have to get around the child support laws? Why would she sign the napkin if that's what she wanted? Certainly it be more in her interests to hold that man accountable would it not?
And lets say she gets a sperm donation from the sperm bank, how is the state in a better position when she goes on welfare or asks for subsidies? You can't get child support from the father because your sperm bank rules preclude that. So what are you actually accomplishing when you do that?
All you're really doing is giving the woman less control over whom she gets the sperm from and making her pay extra money to a doctor to squirt the sperm into her. How does that make it better?
Keep in mind that many sperm banks have been caught lying about where they got their sperm. Sometimes there is only one donor in the sperm bank. All sperm coming from ONE guy and that guy works for the sperm bank. I think there was a janitor or something for one of these places and he replaced all the sperm in the bank with his sperm and got away with it for years and years. I think they estimated he had a total of four or five hundred children. Which would put his fertility at roughly what Genghis Khan had. And this has happened more than once. What is more, even when that isn't happening the quality of the sperm is often exaggerated. It is often a very normal person that is donating their sperm and not some uberman which is generally what women ask for when they ask for sperm. The thing is that ubermen generally don't donate their sperm to sperm banks because they're too busy having sex with the entire cheerleading team... at once. Who wants to masturbate into a cup when you can a harem fighting over the privilege to stick your dick in the relevant hole?
So lets say you find a guy that has the genes you want. You approuch him and say "I just want your sperm"... how do we handle this contract in a way that works for you?
Can the man deposit his sperm in the bank and then have her with draw his personal sperm? If not, then you're circumscribing her ability to choose where her sperm comes from. This notion that if you go to the bank you have to accept the sperm lottery is absurd. If I bought eggs from an egg bank, I'd want to see some pictures of the woman that donated them. Very revealing pictures. Not to fab to furiously... but to judge her genetic value. If I'm going to buy an egg, I'd like to know what I'm buying. If it is some dumpy bucktoothed horse hybrid... why would I pick that egg when what I wanted was the most ideal female egg I could get my hands on?
And women are the same way in this situation. They want the best sperm they can get. They don't want just ANY sperm. They can get any sperm from anyone. They go to the sperm bank to get excellent sperm. But there is no excellent sperm in the sperm bank.
There have even been some sperm banks that supposedly specialized in elite sperm. They said they got it from graduate students in good standing in college and successful athletes etc. But most of those have been found to be fraudulent because the reality is that they can't high quality guys to donate sperm. You either have to pay them more than women are willing to pay for it. Or you have to accept "okay" sperm at best... if not just random sperm from anyone.
You say you're stopping people from getting around paternity laws by doing things this way... but I don't see how your policy is serving any purpose. Why do you need to hold people to paternity laws in the first place if you're okay with a woman getting random sperm shot into her by a sperm bank and then providing child support to her at the state's expense? How is society better off when a woman gets sperm from a bank rather then some guy she knows?
What is the net difference? Because from what I can see, you've accomplished nothing in the state's interest by forcing them to go to the sperm bank. Explain it to me.
Flash mobs are organized on social media... if you do a riot the same way then... sure, if you monitor the whole fucking internet like skynet or something then you might be able to predict a riot.
However, here is a better idea... when a riot starts... How about you actually send the actual police to the actual disturbance and stop it before it gets completely out of control.
It is really not that hard. You get the police out there with a megaphone and you say "you have a right to peacefully protest so long as you do not obstruct traffic or businesses. Be peaceful and respectful of the community and you are welcome here. If however there is vandalism, intimidation, or other illegal activity, the police will break the up the crowd by any means. You have been warned."
Then have the police there with tear gas and gas masks and a meat wagon. If the protest is peaceful like an MLK protest, then leave them alone because they're not hurting anyone. If however they pull a Rodney King, Katrina, Frugison, Baltimore type riot... then you say over the megaphone "We are not dispursing the crowd as members of the crowd have begun vandalizing property etc. Leave the area if you do not live here and if you do live here then go home. You have five minutes to dispurse"
Anyone that doesn't want to choke on tear gas is going to leave right then and there. Those that remain get to eat tear gas. And while they're on all fours vomiting up their breakfast, the police can come in with gas masks, zip tie everyone that decided to stay, and cart them all away in the meat wagons.
No one gets hurt. Property damage is kept to a minimum. Everyone is warned of what is going to happen before it happens. No one is subjected to the tear gas without being given an option to not be hit with tear gas. And the riot is stopped cold.
The looting and lawlessness that is typical of riots happens because there is a break down in order. You do not solve that problem by backing off and letting the whole area turn into Mad Max. You stop it by going in there and laying down the law.
I am NOT advocating brutality or infringing anyone's rights. You do not have a right to riot any more then one person all by himself doesn't have the right to walk around throwing bricks through windows. You don't inherent rights in a mob that you don't have by yourself. If you don't have the right to tip cars over whenever you feel like it then you don't have the right to do it in a mob simply because a lot of people are doing it with you.
The gas is largely harmless. We subject our own soldiers to tear gas in basic training. If it actually caused any lasting harm to anyone then we wouldn't do that. The gas will also break up all but the most die hard members of the riot. Ideally you want as many people to leave the area on their own without requiring the police to deal with each individual person.
That leaves the core of the riot. And those people tend to have long criminal records, be mostly interested in exploiting the chaos to steal, and are generally people that society rarely suffers from having in jail.
I was in Los Angeles during the King riots. And the same stupid thing happened in LA that happened in Baltimore. You do NOT give the riot space or assume that it will just burn itself out if you leave it alone. It is as likely to turn into the Lord of the Flies in there as anything else. They're more likely to eat each other than they are to calm down on their own.
What is so sad is that modern police in the 21st century are failing to do something that the average city guard throughout history had no trouble handling.
It isn't rocket science. Let the police do their jobs and the riot will be over before it starts.
As to who is asking for traditional gender roles to change... feminists.
As to your citation of some mean tweets being evidence that there is a serious political campaign advocating harm against women... that makes no sense.
I tell people to stick a shotgun in their mouths and blow raspberry jam all over their walls all the time. Am I ACTUALLY advocating murder or even suicide? Not really... it is just an internet diss. Citing an internet diss as evidence of actual real world hate is naive.
You cite all this stuff from gaming for some reason. I'm not quite understanding why. For one thing, in games you tell people to die all the time. You get raging 10 year olds that can't handle getting owned and then they rage at you.
What is more, I distinctly remember seeing some woman in a news article claiming that she was raped because someone crotch humped her in a video game.
Everyone gets crotch humped in video games and no one is raped as a result of that. It is a joke and a dig that happens when you lose. I shot you in the face in the game... so I get to crotch hump you. You were not raped. It is a game. If you can't handle something the average 10 year old can handle... then I can't help you.
As to MRAs... I'm not an MRA. Is anyone that argues against capitalism a communist? By your binary logic anyone that has a problem with any bit of feminism must be an MRA. That is irrational.
What is more, I saw some statistics recently that showed that women that self identify as feminists in the United States are in the MINORITY... so you're not even speaking for a majority of women.
I saw that Emma Watson speech to the UN and she starts it by saying "feminists have this reputation of being man haters"... That was pretty much the only honest thing she said in the speech. And the reputation is largely accepted by men and women.
If your position on feminism is that you believe in equality, then rejoice... nearly everyone believes in equality including myself. If you ask for MORE than equality, then you're going to have to make an argument for special treatment. And any special treatment you get is going to come with a price. No one gets special treatment without having to pay for it. For example, children... they have limited liability. The price? They have limited rights.
That is the bargain you're going to have to make if you want MORE than equality.
Here is going to be the real killer problem you're going to have with me though... I'm hyper logical. Your appeals to shame, your conflation of divergent concepts, and your various attempts to use identity politics are meaningless to me. I turn everything you say into symbolic logic as effortlessly as I breath. And any logical error or contradiction sticks out like 1+1= 8.4.
You want me to be a man? Okay. Then like a man, I challenge you to defend your position with what wits you have. And when you fail because I'm smarter than you, I will rub your defeat in your face, claim dominance over you... And probably treat you like my gimp here after.
Is that what you want? You tell me the rules, sport and I'll play by them. Any rules you like. You want to play the victim? I can play a better victim then you if I want. I can cry on command. I did a lot of theater in school and one of my teachers taught the whole class how to cry on command. I still know how to do it.
Want to play who can cite more shit they found on the intenet? I know how to use google, my friend. It ain't hard.
You want to have an intellectual contest of wits and reason? I am your fucking huckleberry if you want to challenge me there.
You want me to be a "man"... what does that mean to you? Because when yous say that you then infer that real men bend over and take it in the ass. Since when is that how real men behave? Real men, so far as I was taught are assertive, personally responsible, and not afraid to challenge rivals for power, credibility, and authority. So... I am a real man in that sense. But if you want me to play your g
As to why the kansas law works the way it does, your reasoning doesn't explain why a napkin agreement would be equally valid. You're saying you want to make sure the parties agree with what is happening... that is what the napkin establishes. I rest my case.
As to enforcing contracts, it is the state that collects the child support... so the only way you could not enforce the contract is to do nothing. If you take any action you're doing something.
Your position is a contract neither party signed is more valid than one that they both signed. That's absurd.
As to consulting a lawyer, the law has an obligation to be self consistent and there are a lot of court cases won on the basis that a given law operates differently than other laws in a similar context for no apparent reason. This notion that the law can be whatever and get a lawyer to explain it to you is tautology. You're saying the law is valid and reasonable because it is the law. As if any and all laws must be valid and reasonable if they are law. We can both name many laws to each other that were later determined to be unreasonable and stuck down. To say nothing of many existing laws that are held in low repute by nearly everyone.
As to trickery, you have intent. You have the agreement of the lesbians. Why would you go after the guy that donated his sperm instead of the woman that committed to her partner when she got pregnant? If anyone should be expected to pay child support, it is that woman.
That is the PROGRESSIVE response, is it not? I am acknowledging their relationship... which doesn't require a marriage to be actionable for child support because men are held accountable for child support without marriage all the time. Men have even been held accountable for child support when they didn't even conceive the child.
Say I am married to a woman and she cheats on me with my best friend... I divorce her because she really hurt my feelings... the law generally is going to make ME pay for the baby even though it was my asshole friend that knocked up my wife. By that standard, the relationship trumps whomever squirted his juice into her baby maker.
What you are furthermore acknowledging here is that the issue is confused and not very well adapted to the situations I'm throwing at you. What you don't understand is that your point that it is confused supports my position that the laws are antiquated. Restrict what is possible and permissible to the traditional gender roles, medical realities etc and the existing laws are quite reasonable. The problem is that those conditions are not a given and therefore cannot be assumed.
And it is still rape... I didn't say that they were identical... I said BOTH are rape.
End of discussion. You're not being intellectually ethical and I don't want to waste any more time sorting your nonsense.
As to statistics, I don't take statistics seriously unless I understand how they're taken and have audited the methodology of the statistic. I've seen too many bullshit statistics over the years to take any stat at face value unless it is very very simple and the methodology is effectively raw.
If there is any filtering or analysis in the statistic then I need to audit that.
So, how are they arriving at these numbers exactly?
I actually clicked on those links associated with that wiki page and found this in the Excel file:
""The food consumption refers to the amount of food available for human consumption as estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets. However the actual food consumption may be lower than the quantity shown as food availability depending on the magnitude of wastage and losses of food in the household, e.g. during storage, in preparation and cooking, as plate-waste or quantities fed to domestic animals and pets, thrown or given away.""
That was something I found in the first 10 seconds of checking on this thing. So... your stats are already questionable because they're not even measuring consumption. I knew they couldn't possibly be because how could you possibly measure that? Are you sitting at my dinner table?
Anyway, the UN links on the wiki page are dead short of that excel file. That's not good. And the hunger map doesn't actually address the US at all. The US is cited as "not assessed" on that map.
Basically I think you're trying to turn the availability of food in my country into something we should be ashamed of... which is kind of funny. Nothing new though, we get blamed for being rich, and powerful. Why not blame us for being able to feed ourselves as well? I mean... lets just go completely Orwellian on this and say that Famine is Bounty or something.
Too funny. :D
I ignored your stats before because stats are so frequently bullshit that I tend to just ignore them by default. But if you want to poke me and force me to rip them to fucking shreds... so be it. *yawn*
As to just eating less, the human body doesn't respond well to that scenario. It slows the metabolism down, causes the body to shed muscle mass, and sends various evolutionary signals that you might be suffering through famine like conditions. Which means the body will ramp your energy levels down, prioritize fat creation, and generally make you into a fat piece of shit.
The best way to not be fat is to have an active metabolism. You don't need to be an Olympic athlete. You do need to have enough activity to keep the system running. If you stop moving and start eating fewer calories than you burn just by sitting on your ass... your body is going to assume you're in a famine and trigger all the emergency famine responses.
Understand WHAT you are... you are a product of millions of years of evolution. Understand that evolution is the silent partner in all these situations. What is the perspective of evolution in this situation?
Human beings having lots of food, doing nothing physically, and not being at any risk of ever running out of food is unprecedented in our genetic history. So our DNA is not going to read this situation accurately.
We don't fail to build muscle because the body NEEDS us to move to build muscle. We build muscle because we send an evolutionary signal to our bodies that we NEED the muscle and so energy is directed to build and maintain that muscle.
Genetically there is no reason why you couldn't have an eight pack without any exercise at all. You don't get that because the body doesn't like to waste resources on things that are not being used. That is all exercise really does in most cases. It communicates to the body that certain things are needed.
As to you not seeing the feminists, a man that sticks his head up his ass won't see the sun rise in the morning either. Everyone sees them but you. You are in the minority here.
Pop open the paper and how many articles are going to be feminists asking for things versus men asking for things from women? It is night and day.
As to emma watson, the video of it was put on the internet. You're not going to make the creationist argument are you? Because... this "were you there" argument is the same one they use when they want to claim the world is 6000 years old. Its a stupid argument.
As to "manbabies" this is an interesting double standard and rather funny attempt to enforce traditional gender roles. On the one hand you want gender roles to change but on the other you are telling men to "man up".
You can't have it both ways, chuck. If you want men to be sensitive and vulnerable... willing to cry... and share their feelings... then you need to not tell them they're man babies whenever they point out that the system is in some respects biased against them.
The mindless hypocrisy on these issues is half disappointing and half flattering. Because it reveals that there are a lot of stupid people out there which is sad... but on the bright side I'm not one of them, which is awesome.
As to projection, the difference is that I can validate the claim where as you'll probably start to sputter after inferring it.
As to raping and killing women, this is just idiotic strawman... who is advocating that? Are the MRA's you're so afraid of advocating the rape and murder of women? Are they standing up and saying "rape is awesome and we should do more of it!"... or is that just a rather pathetic strawman mixed with a hyperbole chaser?
Rhetorical question... you know what you did there... you drew a face on your ass... then pulled your pants down, opened your asshole, and made shit come out of the mouth your drew on your butt. You are speaking... shit. Your argument is so comically bad that it could be genuinely funny if you weren't actually serious. And that just makes it sad.
The problem with your theory is that the primary cost to airlines IS fuel and they set up those routing systems to maximize the fuel economy of the whole network.
The issue is the big jumbo jets when full of passengers are pretty much as efficient as it gets. Planes get less efficient per person as they get smaller.
So the concept is that you have small planes FULL of people traveling to the nearest hub, then you have as many people as possible moved from Hub to Hub via a jumbo jet. And then finally you have any final leg of the trip handled by a smaller plane.
The per person fuel economy would be lower if you had a small plane go directly from point A to point B over a long distance.
Again, as evidence, the airlines cite fuel as their largest operating cost and it is in their interest to maximize the per passenger fuel economy because that translates directly into per passenger profit.
The market is really quite good at managing these things. I don't know why people have such little confidence in it. You can see the effect of the market in streamlining things throughout our economy all the time.
... yeah, we can't continue this discussion because you're just an endless stream of strawmen. I've tried really hard but you start every post with a bullshit premise and then force me to spend half my next post correcting your bullshit.
Quote the bit were I said that statutory rape is the same thing as rape period or there is no reason why the concept shouldn't have its own legal term.
That quote doesn't exist which renders the initial portion of your post bullshit.
Anywho... Good day.
At least from the perspective of it being very efficient. Planes burn a lot of fuel but they also complete their task very quickly.
Hmmm... given that feminists are widely regarded by both men and women to be pretty whiny. I don't see where you get the moral authority to complain about someone else complaining?
Lets say some feminist came on and talked about whatever got her panties in a bind and I responded with something about her "incessant whinning and pants-pissing" about the evil men that are spoiling everything?
Would you accept that as a valid response or would you contradict your position and view that differently?
Whether or not you would, I see feminists talking about stuff all the time without anyone slapping them down openly... didn't Emma Watson make some speech to the UN recently? Who is whining here? Look at the newspapers and count how many of the articles are pushing a pro feminism position versus anything pushing some moderation on the issue? Its night and day.
What I find with these sorts of judgements like the one you just offered, is that they are almost always projection. That is... the comment is more rationally applied to the people making the comment rather than against their target.