If you think you have to use words to get consent from a woman to have sex with her, or that its even an option, you're not very successful with women. You're almost certainly a better person than me, good for you, i really do mean that... but im not interested in that. If you want to be very successful in this aspect of life, you have to be willing to sometimes push boundaries which means offending some girls. Calling it sexual harassment is absolutely ridiculous
He may be rapey (i dont think so, but i guess you can make that argument), but at least he has enough respect for women to believe they are actually able to make life choices on their own.
No, no he does not. They chose to report Louis CK's sexual harassment, and he's arguing against the validity of that choice by lying about whether the activity was consensual (it was not.) They consented to come to his room, not to see his penis. Louis CK made life choices for them by misrepresenting his plans. Come on up and we'll hang out does not imply come on up and I'll whip my dick out whether you want me to or not.
I understand people on this site may not exactly be masters of social interactions, but when a stranger of the opposite sex asks you, late at night, after showing a clear interest in you: "Hey, wanna come back to my place?" then yes, it absolutely implies showing each other your genitalia. If you think otherwise you're an idiot
No, it was not. And really, given that, the rest of your comment is totally irrelevant apologia for nonconsensual sexual acts. You're rapey AF.
He may be rapey (i dont think so, but i guess you can make that argument), but at least he has enough respect for women to believe they are actually able to make life choices on their own. You dont seem to share that belief.
I'm one of those people who still dont "get it". I mean i get what you're trying to say, but its slightly more complicated than that.
You may or may not realize that men and women don't really have the same criteria for picking mates (in fact, men usually dont pick at all, no matter how much of a stud you think you are.... Women appear to be the sexual selector in the human species, since you have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors). Women simply do not mate with men that have less power and less resources than them[1][2][3]
If we have so little respect for women that we start to believe they are not capable of making decisions for themselves regarding sex (sexual revolution anyone?) then that means that every single male out there who have ever had sex with a female was simply abusing their power to take advantage of women
Following that logic, doesn't that mean that a man who cheats on his wife with a very beautiful, young, woman is freed of all guilt? Since he's incapable of making decisions when influenced by her physical appearance? Yes. Yes it does. I hope you see how ridiculous this is
As for the negative repercussions... If you, as a man, have ever approached a woman and been rejected you will know there are very real, and very severe, negative social repercussions to that as well. I'd even argue they, in some cases, even outshines the negative repercussions a woman might face when rejecting a man in power
1: Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study.
2: Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind
3: Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution.
Is this really what slashdot has come to? One of the highest modded posts is "You're a democrat/republican therefore you're simple and stupid! Hah! Got 'em"
Please, keep that stuff on Reddit
Better, actually, since these add-in cards usually connect directly to the CPU instead of going through the PCH. This lets you run 2 NVMe drives in raid without being bottlenecked by the DMI 3.0 (PCIe 4x) connection between the CPU and PCH
Polygamy is outlawed in many places because it's bad for society, but not for the reasons you suggest. When polygamy is possible the elite men take all the women leaving a large portion of the male population very sexually frustrated. Studying history we know what happens from here: uprising, no motivation to work, chaos.
THAT'S the reason, not to avoid poverty. You want to have more money? Don't have kids
So you're willing to lie and deceive because you see yourself as some sort of vigilante who's out for vengeance. Yet you still believe you hold the moral high ground. +5 interesting indeed.
Yes, absolutely. But more importantly is your claim that it's been made a symbol of extremist groups which is just not true. Sometimes they use it, perhaps, but in the overwhelming majority of cases it's used for silly memes.
I'm honestly surprised people on this site can be so out of touch with internet culture
Slashdot Mirror
If you think you have to use words to get consent from a woman to have sex with her, or that its even an option, you're not very successful with women. You're almost certainly a better person than me, good for you, i really do mean that... but im not interested in that. If you want to be very successful in this aspect of life, you have to be willing to sometimes push boundaries which means offending some girls. Calling it sexual harassment is absolutely ridiculous
He may be rapey (i dont think so, but i guess you can make that argument), but at least he has enough respect for women to believe they are actually able to make life choices on their own.
No, no he does not. They chose to report Louis CK's sexual harassment, and he's arguing against the validity of that choice by lying about whether the activity was consensual (it was not.) They consented to come to his room, not to see his penis. Louis CK made life choices for them by misrepresenting his plans. Come on up and we'll hang out does not imply come on up and I'll whip my dick out whether you want me to or not.
I understand people on this site may not exactly be masters of social interactions, but when a stranger of the opposite sex asks you, late at night, after showing a clear interest in you: "Hey, wanna come back to my place?" then yes, it absolutely implies showing each other your genitalia. If you think otherwise you're an idiot
I don't think it's ridiculous or outlandish.
You're wrong.
It was all consensual.
No, it was not. And really, given that, the rest of your comment is totally irrelevant apologia for nonconsensual sexual acts. You're rapey AF.
He may be rapey (i dont think so, but i guess you can make that argument), but at least he has enough respect for women to believe they are actually able to make life choices on their own. You dont seem to share that belief.
I'm one of those people who still dont "get it". I mean i get what you're trying to say, but its slightly more complicated than that. You may or may not realize that men and women don't really have the same criteria for picking mates (in fact, men usually dont pick at all, no matter how much of a stud you think you are.... Women appear to be the sexual selector in the human species, since you have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors). Women simply do not mate with men that have less power and less resources than them[1][2][3] If we have so little respect for women that we start to believe they are not capable of making decisions for themselves regarding sex (sexual revolution anyone?) then that means that every single male out there who have ever had sex with a female was simply abusing their power to take advantage of women Following that logic, doesn't that mean that a man who cheats on his wife with a very beautiful, young, woman is freed of all guilt? Since he's incapable of making decisions when influenced by her physical appearance? Yes. Yes it does. I hope you see how ridiculous this is As for the negative repercussions... If you, as a man, have ever approached a woman and been rejected you will know there are very real, and very severe, negative social repercussions to that as well. I'd even argue they, in some cases, even outshines the negative repercussions a woman might face when rejecting a man in power 1: Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. 2: Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind 3: Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution.
Is this really what slashdot has come to? One of the highest modded posts is "You're a democrat/republican therefore you're simple and stupid! Hah! Got 'em" Please, keep that stuff on Reddit
What are you talking about? He never said anything like that
When team fortress 2 went free to play they gave everyone who had purchased the game a virtual hat. I like hats
Or if you prefer Mike Tyson: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth
Better, actually, since these add-in cards usually connect directly to the CPU instead of going through the PCH. This lets you run 2 NVMe drives in raid without being bottlenecked by the DMI 3.0 (PCIe 4x) connection between the CPU and PCH
Polygamy is outlawed in many places because it's bad for society, but not for the reasons you suggest. When polygamy is possible the elite men take all the women leaving a large portion of the male population very sexually frustrated. Studying history we know what happens from here: uprising, no motivation to work, chaos. THAT'S the reason, not to avoid poverty. You want to have more money? Don't have kids
What a silly and arrogant thing to say. There are benefits to both, of course, which is why universities use both (lectures and reading material)
So you're willing to lie and deceive because you see yourself as some sort of vigilante who's out for vengeance. Yet you still believe you hold the moral high ground. +5 interesting indeed.
I see your point but lets be real here. There is no actual difference between being blocked and being pushed to page 20 of the search results
As long as you're not a hetero white male, of course, and define Nazi as someone voting republican
How was this modded up? It's nonsense.
Well yeah, since strongly and weakly typed is not formally defined. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Oh do shut up already. Your entire argument is "I like dynamic typing, if you don't that means you suck and is a horrible person"
Yes, absolutely. But more importantly is your claim that it's been made a symbol of extremist groups which is just not true. Sometimes they use it, perhaps, but in the overwhelming majority of cases it's used for silly memes. I'm honestly surprised people on this site can be so out of touch with internet culture