This made me lol! This is a bad thing, I'm at work and look like a crazy person now.Kenami said:
I once had a co-worker get a day off for her sisters co-workers wedding...who she barely even knew. I tried to come in 30 minutes later because of a class and it's a serious "no!" I actually literally facepalmed myself in front of my boss when that happened. (and yes my co-worker gave the honest reason to why she was taking off).Anjel said:
While Australia redefined it in the 80's, some states since have redone their laws effectively putting the rape conviction back on the books, South Australia is an example of this. The court will convict you of rape, your record will list rape and while there may be some document somewhere that will list it as a sexual assault that does not change anything else.Dulcinea said:
You're missing the feminist perspective on that whole concept. He *is* a rapist who got off, because he was accused, and all rape accusations are always legitimate. You see, both sides will agree that those reporting sexual assault charges frequently lie, the primary difference being that the feminist side will claim that they lie about everything except being the victim of sexual assault which they are incapable of lying about. Any *other* parts of their statement however could be lies to make the account sound more like what they believe the evil patriarchy will accept as a "real" account and thus might not be entirely honest. That way, it's only a false charge if you can positively prove that no such crime has ever been committed against them by anyone at any point in their life, and unless you can meet that standard then the accused is a rapist who the law failed to rightly convict and you hate women and are contributing to the rape culture if you believe otherwise.ShatteredBlack said:
It's just another example of Affirmative Action, which is itself largely a series of unfair double standard. The whole point is to try to counteract subjective unquantifiable "oppression" by giving said minority groups explicit and easily quantifiable "advantages". Because you see, equal opportunity *isn't*, minorities need to have superior opportunity because their ancestors were given the short end of the stick though we can't measure how much is needed nor for how long it will be needed aside from looking at outcomes. Even when outcomes suggest that current Affirmative Action is beyond sufficient, you are a filthy racist/sexist/whateverist if you suggest that they be scaled back.Ajna said:
Don't worry, you didn't come across that way, I just fancied a debate.SvenBTB said:
There was even a L&O:SVU episode in which two men were sexually assaulted and branded (with the words "Ruiner" and "Traitor" respectively) by a woman. She gets caught red-handed en route to attack her third victim. By the end of the episode they had gone full "just punishment" route and were apologizing to her for her needing to serve a short sentence for two counts of trespassing. She was of course happy enough at the severe punishments given her victims for sexually assaulting her 14 years previously.Extraintrovert said:
I'm surprised by the lactose intolerance thing. It's a simple genetic mutation whose prevalence is more or less determined by the proportion of your ancestors that were animal herders. That's why it's rare among Asians except those of Mongolian descent -- less prevalence of animal herding means less likelihood to fall back on milk when there's a slim crop means less likelihood to starve if you can't handle milk means less prevalence of that particular mutation (most mammals stop producing lactase when they're weaned and are by default lactose intolerant). It's comparatively common among those of European descent though. The same lines can be seen regarding lactose tolerance in cats and the habits of humans where they are descended from, for more or less exactly the same reasons. I don't remotely see what's so controversial on that one.
ONCE AGAINNightlyNews said:
Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man, he can't be a false idol if he is actually God. In worshipping him you are also worshipping God.Fwee said:
The problem with this is that if a family is all vegetarian or vegan, they may not even have meat in their house. Also, the term "meat eater" or carnivore isn't very correct in describing the households of people who eat meat. They tend to eat both meat and veggies therefore are omnivores. If they truly were meat eating carnivores, then it is unlikely they would have any veggies in their house and therefore cannot provide veggies to a vegetarian guest.voorhees123 said:
I lived in North Carolina for a few years and some of my friends were what the media would call fundamentalist Baptists. They were surprisingly normal, constantly wanting me to attend their surmons and shit, but they also got together to watch mma and shit like any normal social group. Someone can believe in ghosts or aliens and the fact that I don't doesn't make me dislike them. Why do you look down on people who believe in god.Fwee said:
Being naked is natural. So is multiple partners for the human race, but running around with your dick out and marrying multiple women is illegal.CrazyCapnMorgan said: