Personage1

Sorry, what are you saying with this comment? It reads like you are trying to inform me of something, but in the context of being a reply to what I said I can't see what your point actually is.

Intentionally creating collisions is good?

Keep in mind I'm basing this off someone claiming it in an askaliberal thread, but apparently there are a lot more people who think trans people should be able to transition than who believe being trans is "real."

Which suggests to me that even when someone thinks someone else is being stupid, most people just want to leave them alone and not care. Republicans desperately need people to care and obsess in order for their socially conservative ideals to work.

While the first Resident Evil has a few decent parts (that Pandorum essentially took and legitimately improved on), I have no illusions about the fact that they are ridiculous and campy and I love them. I think I made it to 4 or 5 before I couldn't take it, and that's really good for me and a shitty series.

Wouldn't that mean that if an offensive player saw someone poaching, it would always be correct to run their defender into the poacher? Not just when they have the disc, but any chance they get?

I'm......really really really sympathetic to the idea that people abuse picks. Like I would argue that most if not all of those examples were people using them wrong, and holy hell do I see it constantly when I play. But is allowing cutters to have a green light to just run their defender into any poacher a good solution? Basically make it so that the best outcome for the defense is for them to collide hard enough to injure one of them, in order to get the stoppage.

Among other things, boys and men aren't socialized to, well, be social. To pursue friendships and be there for each other the way girls and women are socialized to do.

Throw in that there is a concerted effort by certain groups, on the internet at least, to whine and cry about any suggestion that maybe we should try to change our behavior while also demanding that women/feminists just fix things for them and it becomes hard for a healthy movement similar to feminism that can support boys and men in breaking out of the unhealthy gender roles we have.

(And because I'm well aware of how fragile certain people are, when I say "unhealthy gender roles" up there I mean "the specific gender roles that are unhealthy." Granted if this were a larger discussion about gender roles in general, I do think all gender roles for men and women are inherently unhealthy because they apply "should" to people simply based on what genitalia they were born with)

Holy putting words in someone's mouth Batman!

What would it actually take to change your mind, because uh, source needed for basically all your claims.....

Since you are being super oversimplified, I'm just assuming you are applying that to all aspects of your life. It makes a lot of sense to me that there is a difference.

Well, again ifrom wikipedia

During the murder trial,[d] Bryant testified that Till grabbed her hand while she was stocking candy and said, "How about a date, baby?"[46][29] Bryant said that after she freed herself from his grasp, Till followed her to the cash register,[46] grabbed her waist and said, "What's the matter baby, can't you take it?"

Go on a date that is explicitly casual? Setting aside the whole "how did we meet without me being a creep" hurdle, I would be super cautious with anyone under 25-26 and apply the campsite rule. I would still need to actually get along with them and not have their immaturity thrown in my face, so realistically anyone under 21 is probably going to make me run even if I would be willing to ignore the number.

For something more serious, realistically there's just such a major jump in maturity around 24-26 that I can't imagine truly giving someone under that age a shot at all.

I'm 36.

Who knows what the ratio is.

But there are absolutely a lot of men who don't ask women out because they don't imagine they will succeed. Combine this with society pushing for boys/men to be the ones to initiate rather than girls/women and clearly there would be more dating if women asked men out more often.

Being bullheadedly oversimplistic seems far more in line with alt-right mindsets than having an honest discussion about what information tells us. I assume you would also not want to implement any kind of policies targeted at serving black or native populations, because that's "discrimination" too.

I guess I can see the confusion, but I think it's kind of obvious I was saying that more conservative justices were the ones who stopped the attempts to improve the country.

I mean I know the answers to the questions I asked, but those questions are obviously the first step anyone who wants to think critically should do. It's a bit telling that actually digging into statistics seems to trigger you.....

Alt-right people would say the statistics are the end all be all. You'll note I said it's the first step.

Have you checked any of them? Not all, just any, to see if they actually provide what the report claims they provide?