Discussing which restroom they should be using is a little premature; we should be discussing which mental health institution they should check in to or which psychologist they should be visiting for treatment and therapy.
Living in close proximity to San Francisco I come across more transgendered individuals than one might in other parts of the world, and while I don't hold any animosity towards them, I do wholeheartedly believe they are mentally ill.
People who identify as a gender other than the one defined by objective standards of gender, like chromosomes, hormones, and gentiles, constitute a tiny minority of any population. A minority so tiny it's actually comparable to the number of people who identify as a species other than human, despite all the contrary evidence that they are not, in fact, a horse or a cat or a dragon. There's not a shred of evidence any of these humans are anything but, despite their protests that they feel, "trapped in a human body," coincidentally the exact same protest transgenders make.
If you think that someone who really believes at the core of their being that they are actually a dog and not a human being, and that they want to act out that fantasy by wearing nothing but a collar, barking at things, walking on all fours, and eating kibble, is utterly insane, I agree with you. And I find a transgendered person wanting to take drugs to fuck up their body chemistry, saw off their body parts, and run around in a wig to be equally insane.
Generally I don't have any problem with people doing something crazy so long as it's not a danger to others or themselves. However, transgenders suffer some of the highest suicide rates in the country, before and after any surgery or hormone treatment they undergo. If you care about the quality of life for a transgendered person, then you must agree they need treatment, not to be coddled and told their condition is perfectly acceptable.
I would say it means both a disbelief in religion and a disbelief in the supernatural. Religion is really just a philosophic practice that involves the supernatural. You have to believe in something supernatural to be religious in 99% of cases. Atheism is actively rejecting the potential supernatural element of reality; it follows naturally that any worship, practice, dogma, or religion founded on said rejected supernatural would also be rejected.
Additionally, I dislike the "or a lack of belief" bit of Atheism definitions, since that is the definition of agnosticism, and it's best to avoid redundancy and wasting words.
If you reject all or most of religion/the supernatural, you're an atheist.
If you don't know, are undecided, lack a belief, or haven't thought about it, you're an agnostic.
much of what is achieved is play to circumstance. skin colour is but one of many advantages you may or may not have, but unfortunately it will undeniably affect your life depending on where and in which culture you live in.
Agreed. But it would be pretty rich of me to move to China and whine and whine because all the Chinese people in China (who, you know, speak the language like natives, have a lifelong understanding of the culture, and look, act, and hold beliefs in a similar manner to the vast majority of people in China) have some kind of "undeserved privilege," and are therefore a bunch of oppressive racists who need to "check" themselves.
if you wouldn't mind, what are your views on the legitimacy of stereotypes?
That they're pretty damn legit if you keep in mind that by definition stereotypes are generalizations based on statistics (or maybe just mental analysis of repeated observation), and that while statistics are made up of individuals but individuals are not made up of statistics. To me this means being willing to cross the street to avoid a thugged-out, crip-walking black man coming my way, but, say, not to inquire about a black acquaintance's stolen firearm and gram of crack/cocaine, insisting he must have them, "because black are, of course, all a bunch of criminal drug dealing scum," or something like that.
Rephrased, just because I like metaphors, ignorance is meeting three Americans and remarking to the third one, "on, you're the one with herpes," citing the 1 in 3 American has herpes statistic. But it's not ignorant to wear a condom because 1 in 3 Americans has herpes.
In places like the US where slavery is only 150 years old, it probably does indicate it.
It's a possibility, I'll readily admit, and a certainty in certain cases, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or even a significant subset. I'm sure you'd agree there is a definite glorification of the poverty/crime lifestyle in large swaths of African American culture, perhaps a sway strong enough to persuade a black youth to choose a career path in gang-related drug peddling, for instance, instead of completing his education and getting a real job when the opportunity is available to him.
It might also have to do with the fact that Central and South America used to be populated by "uncivilized" people. It takes a while to catch up.
If by "uncivilized" you mean "not as likely to be competent academics," I agree with you, as was my point. But why were they less civilized, as you put it? Why do they have to catch up? Central and South America weren't colonized predominantly by white people, nor were the residents made to be slaves. Africa had been the cradle of civilization for thousands of years before white people landed on Her shores and started loading up fieldhands. By rights Africa should posses the most advanced civilization (architecture, agriculture, economy, government, social rights, etc) on the planet, since it's been populated the longest. It doesn't. In fact on average Africa is the worst continent on the planet. Again, why is that? Why were they so far behind that they needed catching up in the first place, even before people who look like me started taking advantage?
Many of them are also immigrants from the nation of Japan, not descendants of slaves. There is a fairly large difference between a slave and a temporary enemy of the state.
Where they are actually from is largely irrelevant. Racism is predominantly predicated on appearance, not actual nationality. Someone discriminating against blacks isn't suddenly going to be nice to a black person if he finds out he's an immigrant or a national; the racist hates the black person because he's black.
Regarding the difference, no argument there, and I meant to say as much but accidentally left it out. However, my point was that pretty much every minority group (including non-American white minorities, like the Irish) faced heavy persecution in the US when they first arrived, and then said minorities largely overcame the persecution, integrated, and are now significantly more successful. I agree that slavery is more damaging than internment, but when you factor in the time differences I think it balances out; the internees themselves and their children went on to college and are now running IMB, Google, and Intel in America. No American to African ex-slaves are still alive. The "oppressed" black descendants of slaves are half a dozen or more generation removed from slavery. Hell, they're more American than half the white people in this country, because they've been here longer.
I think the point is that on average, a while male will receive far more opportunities than some random minority. Maybe your specific case is different, but that does not change the average.
You're probably right, but I'm also unique there because I live in a portion of California where whites are a poverty-ridden minority. What it's gone to show me is that yes, when white men are calling the shots, other white men do pretty well. But also that when Chinese men are calling the shots, other Chinese men do pretty well. And that when Hispanic women are calling the shots, Hispanic women do pretty well. I guess what I resent is less the often correct assertion that whites are doing disproportionately well in the US, and more I resent the implication that racism and/or profile-based favoritism are somehow unique to white people, and all other races are only ever victims.
you briefly hinted at poverty being the cause for black aggression, which i agree with, but i feel you underestimate the predicament horrendously and accept it only when in favour of your race
Yes, but black poverty doesn't automatically indicate white oppression. I heard an NPR piece on Hispanics worldwide being behind in education because both past and present Hispanic culture hasn't had a big emphasis on reading and writing in the household. Maybe true, but it goes to show that just because a group of people is behind doesn't mean it has to be because some other group is holding them back, nor does a group require special privilege to do well. Blacks bore the brunt of slavery in the US, but there were just one group in a long line of oppressed minorities, many of whom are now excelling in the United States. Japanese Americans were subject to internment and discrimination in only the last century, but that hasn't stopped them from jumping to the top of several academic and professional fields in this country. As a white male living in the US I've always resented the notion that anything I achieve isn't the result of my hard work or dedication but of a special, unearned advantage inherit to my skin color, and conversely that any lack of achievement or bad behavior from minorities is a direct result of the terrible, ongoing racial oppression all whites are apparently responsible for.
whenever whites find themselves in a position such as some blacks and others are in now they rebel and slaughter, only in history the whites in these scenarios are seen as righteous and just.
Ahh no. The kind of aggression we're talking about is burglary, mugging, assault, gang association, etc., all of it driven by poverty. Shotgun-totting white-trash hicks with prison tattoos selling crank on the street corner are remembered every bit as distastefully as their black counterparts. I agree that history as we know it is a biased account, but that fact isn't relevant here.
in addition to this, there are no world wars worth mentioning amongst blacks whilst whites have caused 2
That's borne of a lack of capability, not a lack of malicious intent. There have been plenty of insane, homicidal warlords in Africa who would have gladly sparked global conflict if only they had the strength to do so. In fact there's probably even more aspiring tyrants in Africa than anywhere else, given the horrific level of violence that has characterized the continent for most of recorded history (that would be before imperialism, colonization, slavery, the Cold War, and all the other world problems that are evidently the inherited sins of young white people like myself who, of course, had jack shit to do with all of that).
I've always interpreted the prefix 'a' like in 'a'theism to mean anti, or against. It seems to me we already have a term for the lack of belief: agnosticism. To be atheist (i.e. anti-theist, against theism) means you have an active belief that god does not exist. If you simply lack a belief on the matter or you are just unsure, I'd call you an agnostic.
On a personal aside, i don't see how anyone could be an atheist on any ground other than a moral rejection of god/religion as a whole (i.e. the Christian god endorses slavery, I'm morally opposed to slavery, therefore I reject god and am an atheist). Most theists claim their god is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless... an invisible man in the sky, if you will. I don't see how you could prove such an entity does not exist anymore that you could prove it does, so it seems to me rather foolish to assert the theist position of 'yes, god exists' as much as it is to claim 'no, he doesnt;' We don't really know.
As a standalone concept, it doesn't. Even if someone kept, say, an objectively filthy and disgusting living room, it's not really anyones business to go and criticize that. It's a little gross, but also totally private.
Religion as we know it, however, doesn't even come close to anything private. Spirituality, maybe. Faith, maybe. But generally religion is a just greedy, capitalistic, extremely public enterprise that peddles faith to make money. And it is my sincere belief that any public company deceives people into trading money (tax free) for eternal salvation (under the threat of eternal damnation) - including people forcibly indoctrinated into this scam as children - deserves ridicule, and for obvious reasons.
It depends on what you mean by "real problem."
If you mean does video game addiction actually exist, yes, it does. It is real. So it tic-tac addiction and reading addiction and CD addiction.
If you're asking if it's a real problem like is it a large enough problem or epidemic to actually merit concern, no, not as a concept. Maybe certain, rare individuals let their lives be driven to shit by video game addiction, but no more than people who do the same cooped up reading books. I think, like texting, it just gets a bit more media attention than, say, chronic tic-tac addicts because it's new.
This is, by analogy, exactly what I was going to say on the God and freewill argument. Thank you for saving me the time. Pity I can only up-vote you once.
The key word in the debate title is "if."
It's fun to argue hypotheticals like "Hulk vs Thor" or some shit, even if they are complete nonsense.
Yes. Easily. It's a video; i've seen worse in real life. Just recently in fact a gentleman using one of those pole-mounted chainsaws for cutting tall branches dropped it while on a ladder and it shaved off all the skin and some of the muscle on the left side of his left leg. On top of blood gushing out freely, you could also see his muscles moving with no skin to hide them. I've seen people die, but that incident was the most graphic thing I've ever seen, and I don't think any video can compete.
Yay for synonyms!
Oral sex is also oral sex
Anal sex is also anal sex
Sex is also sex
And "intercourse" is:
1: connection or dealings between persons or groups
2: exchange especially of thoughts or feelings : communion
3: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person ; especially : sexual intercourse 1
So if "consummation" requires "intercourse," and "intercourse" includes any kind of sex involving the junk, one can use oral or anal sex to consummate a marriage.
The definitions are very clear. Pity there's so many of them, and they so often contradict one another.
I did look at MW and apparently you are just making this shit up:
1: connection or dealings between persons or groups
2: exchange especially of thoughts or feelings : communion
3: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person ; especially : sexual intercourse 1
So not only does "intercourse" have different meaning than the sexual one, but the sexual one specifically references oral and anal sex and being a type of intercourse.
Nice try, joe.
They are using a book that has stopped progressing.
When you have a scientific text that makes a factual statement, and it turns out at a later date that statement was false and we learned something new about it, the book gets revised and re-released.
That doesn't happen with the Bible, or with any holy text. The words themselves cannot change as we learn and progress.
Yes we are over 1000 years older than you
Depends when you want to count England as England, but sure. Thats better for my argument.
Which is why I find it surprising that you Americans think you can possibly compare your country to ours.
Firstly, you'll notice it was an Englishman who made this debate, not an American.
Secondly, the US and the UK are comparable countries. Out of all the nations of the world you'd be hard pressed to find a country more similar. Which, when you consider you've had an extra thousand years to figure your shit out, must be pretty embarrasing for you guys.
Jumping in on the winning side is also good strategy isn't it? It's what you Americans did in the World Wars anyway.
That's not what we were talking about or the war we were talking about. But thanks for again sharing your evident butthurt over our behavior in a European war 70+ years ago.
1) Yes, our Empire was extremely large, it has yet to be overtaken in size, military power, naval power, economic power etc. and yet you Americans have had a centuries worth of technology to try overtake us and you haven't even come close.
As you pointed out, you have a 1000 year jump on us. We shouldn't even have come close, except we have. Do you honestly believe in a modern US vs England war (one on one) you guys would actually win? We spend all our money on our military.
2) To claim that the entire British Empire was beaten by America is stupid, while the American revolution was occurring British politicians were arguing whether to bother fighting at all, because the American colonies were so worthless.
We fought against England for our independence and won. I don't really care if that happened because of our military prowess or because of your governments incompetence, or both; victory is victory.
To call the French, Spanish and Dutch empires a 'bunch of upstart hicks' is a bit of an insult to them
Oh, well, good thing I never did that, then.
We could handle the Germans quite fine without you and anyway we had Russia to help us.
(Un)fortunately, we'll never know if you would have eventually retaken Europe and kept England if the US hadn't participated in the war and aided you throughout, because that's what happened. Anything else is speculation. Which is why I didn't say we won the war for you, because we didn't, I said we helped, because we did, and you seem to be to arrogant and proud to accept even that.
I also said we helped because we are friends, an opinion that's feeling awfully one-way right now.
A few years is not what I call "straight away".
Yay I get to learn you a on a bit of California slang.
I didn't say 'straight away' (quickly) I said 'straight giving away,' 'straight' here meaning clearly, evidently, up-front, obvious. Example: 'she's a straight bitch.'
Also I made that statement in response to Mic saying it was immoral and unjustified for us to help you in WWII. Do you honestly share that opinion?
Well, joining a war when we start to win isn't exactly fair play.
Firstly, fair play? Are you a fucking knight in shining armor? Perhaps you miss the days when armies would convene at a preappointed time and place, break for brunch, line up, shoot at eachother a bit, have dinner, shoot some more, and whichever side with the most developing infections loses and goes home, but war hasn't been about "fair play" for a very, very long time. In fact fairly fighting a war is a sure way to lose a war.
Secondly, it was a European war. We didn't hesitate to engage the Japanese because they actually attacked us on American soil. We got involved in the European side of things because a European Axis power (namely, Germany) declared war on us. After sinking several of the ships we were using to send you supplies, of course. So no, we didn't just keep and eye on the war and hop in when things started looking good; the war came to us.
Because of the holocaust (which according to you, the Europeans had handled) there was a slight moral imperative to get involved, but aside from that it was a European war. Why should we have gotten involved? European countries fighting European countries over European problems.
I don't know about Mic, but I despise America because they produce citizens with such a distorted view of history that they can claim statements such as "you boasted having an empire so large the sun never set on it, to be eventually bested by a bunch of upstart hicks in colonies half the world away."
So you hate us because our school system isn't to your standard? That seems a lot of energy to put into your opinion about the education of a country half a world away.
The only thing I despise England for is it poor gene pool. It's a cool ass country I really wanted to move to until I actually went there and realized it's populated with some of the most unattractive people on Earth. I understand there's nothing you guys can really do about this, though, and I wouldn't find it so bothersome if I didn't desire to sleep with attractive women, so it's a very personal, subjective qualm.
And wider bodies. Much, much wider bodies.
Hahaha a member of the second most obese country in the world making fat jokes to a member of the most obese country in the world. Do something about your own morbid obesity before you start judging others for it.
Besides, as a nation we're only 7% more obese than England. That means roughly 3.5% more obese chicks in the US. But we also have some 250,000,000 more people, half that many women, which overall means we still have wayyyyyyyyy more skinny chicks to choose from than you do.
All I said was that the rest of the world despises American food due to its habit of being slather with grease or fat.
No, you said the global opinion of American food is that it will kill you if you eat it for too long. Which doesn't make any fucking sense.
That is very interesting, as being an Englishman, I've yet to find anything in our cuisine which is covered with as much grease as your typical american foodstuff.
Maybe we're just better at cooking with it.
Some people need to have such a clarification, otherwise I end up being moaned at for apparently not disputing their entire argument.
But you were disputing my entire argument.
The timestamps don't help as we posted at the same time. And a post that comes after mine with no other clarification can only really be seen as a response by me.
Not really. If someone wants to respond to your post specifically they have several ways they can do that. Making a new, standalone post that's not attached to yours in any way is not one of they ways they can do this. This post, for example, is specifically disputing something you said, so I hit the "dispute" button under your post so it would show up in your activity feed and also be evident to you and anyone else who reads this that I am addressing your post, specifically. If I just made a new post it might very well end up a dozen posts or more away from yours very quickly, making it confusing to know who is talking to who. That's why we use the support, dispute, and clarify buttons; they're designed for that purpose. The only reason your mistake was 'highly justifiable" is you're relatively new (in posts, if not time) to this website, though honestly I'd think over a hundred points accumulated over more than 100 days would be enough to figure out how those buttons work.
Intercourse
Sexual intercourse
Sex
Anal sex
Oral sex
Vag on vag sex
It doesn't seem like it's really a very complicated connection to make.
Anyways, mainly I just wanted to say I don't think you'd be bringing this issue up if some war vet paralyzed from the waist down (including his penis) got married after his tour.
Haha actually what am I saying... you of all people just might do that.
Yeah, that's a good decision, lets have a class where students have to study and learn all about a book filled with ideas, opinions, principles, and dogmas that stopped progressing some 2000 years ago... and then we can make hundreds or thousands of other classes where kids can pore over other books and texts just as useless...
...wait...
When I'm talking about how attractive English or Americans generally are, I'm not talking about the celebrities from either of those countries. I'm talking about day-to-day men and women in the street. The general populace. Real people, as opposed to people who are so dressed-up, made-up and plastic-surgery-up they hardly resemble human beings.
I'm forming an opinion of British chicks based on British chicks I've met both here and there. Not based off famous British celebrities I saw on TV.
Brilliant. So America is also a very wasteful country
Consuming something and wasting something are not the same thing.
It isn't bland you crazy, uncultured fool
Funny you'd say that in response to a post where I said, "Similarly, you'll deny the bland, unpalatable nature of English food because you are English." You're very predictable.
But my opinion of English food has nothing to do with insanity or lack of culture. It's just after trying English food in England and trying English food in America and making English recipes at home, I've determined English food is bland at best and greasy/gross at worst. This would be like me eating Mexican food in Mexico and in America and making it at home and deciding Mexican food is generally pretty spicy, or something.
I always used to do that on exams hoping a black hole would open up on my paper and thus excuse us all from completing the test while we run for out lives.
No luck.
I think it's kind of a bullshit disorder. Certainly an over-diagnosed one.
5mg (very small) pills of adderall (add/adhd meds) have a perforation so you can break them into 2.5mg halves. Why? So you can give them to 3 year old children. Why would a parent give their toddler legal meth? Because "he has trouble concentrating."
Bullshit.
What child doesn't have difficulty concentrating on something?
I'd say maybe one in ten people I've met who are currently on some crack-like prescription for add or adhd actually needs the medication. Everyone else could handle their problem with some quiet music, breathing exercises, and perhaps some incense. We live in a pharmaceutical nation. You're too sad? Take a pill. You're distracted? Take a pill. You have habits? Take a pill.
Well here's some news: everyone gets sad; everyone gets distracted; everyone has habits. This doesn't mean you need to take a pill that (for example) is 75% of everything in meth(amphetamine <--adderall) every day for the rest of your life. You just need to handle your shit.
I speak as someone who turned down OCD medication because I feel like I can handle my OCD naturally, and I speak as someone who spent 2 years of his life effectively addicted to the legal meth we give to 3 year olds because they can't focus.
Everyone offers biased outlooks on everything. So yes. The only part of your discription I disagree with is, The present day media confuses us rather than give us solid facts; that almost seems to imply that the media did anything other than give us biased half-truths at some point, and I really don't believe they ever did.
They'd have to make lots and lots of prayer rooms (so the religious students don't start a holy war or Jihad over the territory) and as there are some 350,000 religions recognized by the US government, that's going to require a lot of time, money, and space to build over a quarter of a million prayer rooms at every public school. Especially when you consider that it's completely unnecessary to pray in a special room and in fact your prayers would be just as effective (or ineffective) if voiced in your head at your desk in your classroom, presumably shortly before a surprise exam, adding prayer rooms to public schools is just ridiculous.
He joined around the same time as me, has been roughly as prolific, and I hope he sticks around because his sound logic, clever comments, and pot smoking ways are few and far between when it comes to members on CD.
Show me one. Just one. I've been waiting my whole life. Upon returning from the UK I did an extensive pornography search for English girls and it turns out even their porn stars are janky. I've pretty much lost hope for beautiful English women, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Because celebrities are real people, right?
I'm basing my opinions off personal experience I've had meeting American and English women in social settings.
You're apparently basing your opinion of American women off of episodes of Entertainment Tonight.
And you're right. Not all British girls have bad teeth. It's just a common national trend, like American obesity. Not all American girls are fat, but statistically speaking they are more likely to be fat. The same goes for British dental hygiene.
America is, however, the largest consumer of fast-food in the world -
We're actually the largest consumer of pretty much everything. So what's your point? This doesn't make American food and fast food the same thing.
and America is the country in which America made the most fast-food.
Um... no shit?
And England is the county in which England made the most fast food.
but I would always choose toad-in-the-hole and other English dishes over a KFC.
And the chef making the shitty hispotal food doesn't think it tastes that bad... you can hardly expect him to. Similarly, you'll deny the bland, unpalatable nature of English food because you are English.
Still, you have about five times more people than we do, so it evens out.
We haven't always had more people than you. And we didn't for the majority of our existance, which means the majority of your existance, as well, plus 700 years.
There was no other alternative - we didn't start those battles.
Even better military strategy on our part, then; we backed you into a corner you couldn't get out of.
Well you were a better nation when you were part of the commonwealth.
We were a better nation when we were no longer part of the commonwealth.
Wow it's kind of fun to just state my position without any kind of supporting facts or evidence.
It is better to have a collection of good people of people who live in the middle of life, than to have some people making millions and others dying on the streets
Why is it better?
In America you have the potential for greater sucess than in many countries. You can become obscenely rich and play/own the system. It's much more difficult to do this in countries like Denmark, where a garbage man gets paid like a doctor. But we pay for the ability to become obscenely rich by having the potental to be shit broke on the street with no help, government or otherwise. America is a country of high highs and low lows. That's the point.
So by launching two nuclear bombs on two cities of completely innocent people, we have to pay you on a daily basis so that you can get rid of your 17 trillion pound debt? Is there even that much money on the planet? Don't be unreasonable, Chad.
What a moronic misunderstanding.
First of all we dropped bombs, not launched them.
Secondly we were at war with Japan; that means their cities were military targets. Hardly "innocent;" they started the war (by killing innocents), not us.
Thirdly we specifically picked cities with strategic military targets. If we had been trying to kill as many civilians as possible, we would have dropped our bombs into the heart of Tokyo (just as easy) instead of on an army base and military supply depot on some island off the mainland.
Lastly, our actions in the Pacific were the actions of our own war with Japan; the money, supplies, resources, and men we dedicated to your cause were not part of that war with Japan, they were part of your war with Germany. Why the fuck would you owe us anything at all for us bombing Japan or not bombing Japan? It's completely irrelevant to the European part of the war, which is the part we helped you guys out with.
I don't really think that nuclear-bombing two innocent cities of people was what I was talking about, Chad.
Good; it wasn't what I was talking about, either. And, in fact, never happened. I was talking about the aid we gave you to help you keep your country from the Germans.
Not really that much sexier - but definitely a lot fatter than in England.
I've never met an attractive English chick. Never. Never ever. Not here, not there. And then they open their mouths (to speak or to smile) and even if they were attractive the fucked up teeth and the mannish accent completely kill it for me.
I have met a lot of fat English and American chicks, though.
Which makes sense when you consider that America is the fattest country in the world at 30% obese and the UK isn't far behind, taking 3rd with 23%. Which means that (assuming it's euqally men and women) you have 3.5% more chicks that are not obese.
But we have 5x the number of people overall.
And no English chicks are hot, fat or otherwise.
So we still have wayyyyyyy more sexy women than you do, in both numbers and appearance.
Also, some people like the fatness. Not me, for sure, but it happens. Obese isn't necessarily synonymous with unattractive.
I've been with many American women and never come across fake boobs or lips. Speak for yourself.
I'm just saying what the rest of the world thinks of you.
Well then the rest of the world is stupid, because like I said the average life expectancy in the states isn't around 30.
The point I was making is that your food may taste better, but that's because is filled with unhealthy components.
You never made that point, but thanks for making it now.
But it's funny you mention that because I'm an American and the main reason I found English food so disgusting was grease grease grease.
I was responding to the whole thing, your post was just a single point (American food tastes better than English Food) and I wanted to outline that I was addressing the whole post and not part of it.
Which is implied if you dispute or support the post without that clarification.
I believe the statistic goes that a woman has more sensitive nerve endings in her clitoris alone than a man does in his entire penis.
Women are more likely than men to achieve multiple orgasms.
Women are also more likely than men to be unable to/have difficulty having an orgasm, but over the course of my education I learned this was mainly a psychological problem, not a physical one.
Finally, speaking from personal experience, I aim to please my partner when I have sex. If I can leave a girl so pleasured-out she's quaking, unable to speak for a good while and unable to walk for even longer than that, I feel I've done my job well and I take pride in my work. That's my goal when I have sex. But personally I have never been brought to that state by sex before. So based off my experience women either feel more pleasure from sex or have lower pleasure thresholds.
You're confusing American food with fast food. Fast food is greasy, fatty junk regardless of which country you get it in.
Obviously not all of our food is like that or we wouldn't make it past 30.
And fast food and American food both taste better than English food, which is the point I was trying to make. You brought up the health stuff.
Also, if you're going to respond the entirety of my post I feel it's kind of redundant to bold the whole thing. It's implied you're responding to the whole thing unless you bold a specific part you want to address.
And I am trying to point out by the same criteria tapping someone on the shoulder MORE than meets the legal standard to be seen as a non-sexual molestation.
Which completely devalues the word and renders it meaningless.
"We invented Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper."
Nice stuff to rot the teeth. Here are a few examples of British foodstuff inventions:
While I have no idea why anyone would be proud of inventing soda, I'm not sure if you should bring up English food in a dick showing competition like this one.
England has a worldwide reputation for having poor, bland, unpalatable food, a generalization I completely agree with after visiting the country. Literally the only good food I had over there was good Indian food. Not any better than what I could find in CA, but still good. But every time I ordered some English cuisine I had a hard time finishing my plate.
The global community views English food along the same lines they view hospital or airline food. It's never going to be delicious, but at least it's a meal... it's sustenance.
You would like a competition for who invented the most? We did.
Well I should damn well hope so. You are over 700 years older than us. If you hadn't invented more stuff in that period of time, you should be ashamed.
fighting a few other battles at the same time - so you were really going for a fair fight there
You mean a smart fight? Allowing yourself to be drawn into conflict on several fronts is poor military strategy; similarly, forcing your enemy to expend their resources on multiple fronts is good military strategy.
I don't remember the other time, but when we took control of you it was utter domination.
And how did that work our for you?
Not well, long term, obviously.
Which is kind of surprising, given that you boasted having an empire so large the sun never set on it, to be eventually bested by a bunch of upstart hicks in colonies half the world away.
You also have millions more in poverty.
Hur dur man that's why we have more millionaires and billionaires.
Yes, and we are now forced to help you economically every single day. You are in so much debt (about 17 trillion) that you now have your own debt clock
Well yes. That's what friends do. Look out for one another. You were getting the shit kicked out of you by some Germans, and we helped. We're broke as fuck, you help us.
You didn't really help us out, anyway - your methods were immoral and unjustified
Yes, straight giving away money and resources to an ally in need was very, very immoral. We ought never do that again. Fighting alongside British troops to reclaim Europe was completely unjustified. We should never do anything like that ever again.
America is the most hated country on the planet.
As is evident from this conversation, we have a lot of haters.
So, why do you maintain a intense, passionate, time/energy-consuming dislike of my country?
In what ways apart from military strength (which has gained you more hate because of how unorthodox it is), do you have any bonus over us?
Much, much sexier women. With better teeth.
1. It is absolutely a taxable profession. In places where it is legal, it is taxed. In places where it is illegal, it still goes on, but it's not taxed.
2. If the buisness is legalized and regulated there won't be any "unchecked prostitutes." They are required to get checked to work. In places where it is illegal, all prostitutes are "unchecked."
3. Generally girls who are strippers or prostitutes know their time is limited. Their profession it dependent on them looking good, which they won't indefinitely. If you're making easy money flipping burgers, that's not a lot of motivation to get out. You can do it forever and flipping burgers it's that bad. If you're stripping for or fucking complete strangers, that sucks and your time is limited. That is motivation to get out.
Besides, we don't make any other industry illegal on the basis that it's "an easy way out."
4. No, currently, where prostitution is illegal, girls are exploited and forced to work like sex slaves by their pimps. If the industry was legalized, regulated, and restricted, there would be minimum wages, health benefits, regular checkups, paid time off, hour limits, overtime, etc. As it is pimps usually just get the girls addicted to crack of meth and then they're stuck in the business until they pay off their debt, which is never. That wouldn't happen in a monitored industry.
5. You don't have to "work hard" to get laid, you just need to be a callous dickhole with a credit card. Also based on what I know of pricing in prostitution, it's actually a good bit cheaper to drop some money and get a girl and get laid regularly as opposed to dropping a few hundred dollars every time you want to fuck. I've had expensive girlfriends in the past, but never anything close to roughly $300 spent for every time we had sex. So if anything prostitution would encourage guys to work harder, because you need to work to get money and prostitutes are more expensive than regular girls.
Also, what societal developments are you talking about? Generally when I see guys trying to impress girls it's by flexing a bunch of drinking a whole lot... not exactly groundbreaking activities, there.
We don't know for sure if anything does or doesn't exist. So that line of reasoning will get us nowhere.
What I meant was, for example, no Irishman in his right mind actually believes there are tiny fairy beings in green suits trafficking gold over rainbows. Yet there are thousands of Irish Catholics generally considered to be "sane" who actually believe that a demigod hippie zombie walked the Earth before ascending bodily to a magic kingdom in the sky.
Both of these beings, Leprechauns and Jesus, might have some "foundation" to their myths. That I don't dispute. I just find it kind of ridiculous most of humanity has no problem blowing off unicorns as a preposterous work of fiction while at the same time most of humanity believes in something equally absurd, they just call it religion. There's equal foundation (or lack thereof) for both of these kind of beings, yet one is regularly and casually dismissed as a fairy tale and the other is regularly and seriously accepted as the holy truth.
With the exception of combat sports and talking shit in social situations, there really aren't very many times in life you're punished with physical pain for fucking up. If you don't get a report to your boss on time, he doesn't bend you over his desk and spank you. No reason to teach kids that's the proper way to behave and manage.
I don't really support marriage as a government institution whatsoever. If two people want to gather with a bunch of other people in a building that has some religious significance to them, preform some abstract ceremony, and start referring to themselves as a "married" couple, that's fine. But it's not something the government needs to get involved in. We don't need a federal stamp of approval on a bullshit love contract we're forced to sign for marriage.
So many cultures also have absurd tales of beings we know to be false, like leprechauns, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, and bigfoot.
People can still make things up. We have many great contemporary fiction authors. They just make up all the stuff they write about. It's not real. This is an improvement on mythology because mythology is made up stuff that some people at some time were delusional enough to convince themselves was real. Or still think is real.
There's kind of a bias against phones when it comes to lawmakers and driving. It's not illegal to eat a steak dinner while driving, it's not illegal to read a book while driving, it's not illegal to be doing makeup while driving, but it is illegal to so much as have your cell on speaker in the passenger seat while making a call. If the laws didn't specifically target cellphones and targeted any and every activity that might distract a driver (i.e. making it illegal to roll down your window while driving or change the volume on your radio) then I might support it. As it is it just comes across as unfair.
In my experience it doesn't really matter how much shit is getting talked, the person who throws the first punch is the one who started the fight, regardless of any provocation. In this instance it wasn't just taking a punch in a fistfight, though, it was the gruesome deaths of thousands of Americans in a surprise bombing run. Regardless of what the US was doing pre-Pearl Harbor, Japan was the one that escalated the US/Japan conflict to the point of death and destruction.
Well the electric chair is still used in the US... it's hard to imagine a form of execution more shocking than that.
