what is it that Americans have against free healthcare?
To put it simply conservatives don't believe their "hard earned money" should go to anyone else. But seriously how selfish can you be?
But they pay tax though. Do they not understand that?
They want less healthcare for poor people and therefore tax cuts to them.
I hear people all the time say "why should I have to pay for somebody else's healthcare"
I've literally talked to people who think the poor and disabled should just die. Basically if you can't provide for yourself you're worthless. Or I heard just the other day the archaic "survival of the fittest" social Darwinism crap. And usually I hear this from people who have been handed resources and opportunities their whole life, but think their success was solely from their hard work.
Load more comments
I recommend an IUD for the future. My wife has the Mirena IUD and though it hurts like hell going in, no babies and hopefully no period for like 7 years. And it's not like regular birth control where if you miss a pill one day it fucks the whole thing up.
You need to call animal control, it was you and your dog this time, next time it could be a child riding a bike, another person walking their dog,.
Well we don't even know from OP's story if the bulldog mix was actually attacking. Every dog I've had tries to bite at other dogs as a form of playing. Ankle biting etc. It seems like her dog was uninjured, so what's your point...to be an asshole and get somebody's dog taken away?
Smonking weed everyday is NOT ok. It warps you and way of thinking. You don't realize how much sharper and all around better you are until you quit it.
Yeah but some people like me get more benefits from it even with the cloudiness because of pain and emotional regulation.
Is this guy seriously being down voted for not liking star wars? Nonsense.
If you don't like star wars you're probably some pedophile rapist. So of course downvotes.
It's not even recouping R&D at this point.
Humalog has been around since 1996.
Toujeo is just a 3x concentrated version of Lantus which has been around since 2000. They knew based on their clinical testing when they released Lantus that a 3x concentrate functioned better for the intended purpose, but with the way intellectual property laws work they held onto that information so that when the Lantus IP ran out, they could re-release it at the 3x concentrate, call it Toujeo, and further their intellectual property rights based on the "change" to the formulation.
Those are both current standard of care medications for Diabetics who have to take insulin and they're 18-22 years old at this point. If they haven't been able to recoup R&D at this point, then boo fucking hoo. This is as you said, literally profiting off sick and dying people.
Well there argument is probably that it's better than if they didn't research and nobody got the new medication. No profit no meds.
Eh. If someone was living in my house without a lease and didn't pay rent.
They'd be out on the street the moment I wanted them out
It falls under a verbal lease. So actually you'd be looking at 3 months to kick them out.
Not where I live in Canada. 17 days without payment.
But I wouldn't even give them that.
Still seems heartless.
I am so infuriated right now by a post in twox about a guy not listening to no, then getting pissy once the girl finally got up the courage to shout at him to stop, and all these men saying well, he just has to learn from experience. Like what the fuck? We have to take on rape trauma so you can develop basic listening comprehension?
Well no is only first level resistance. If you give up on doing what you want after only minor resistance you're not gonna get very far in life.
Numbers don't matter without context. Does it matter if 1 million people were killed by police if those 1 million people tried to shoot and kill police officers?
I would say context is important but just the imbalance of deaths is something to look into.
I think most republicans don't really care because nothing serious is affecting them yet. Because I have to say when all you ever hear from the left is that America is doomed and that we are all gonna be put in death camps and in reality very little has changed from during the Obama year, people tend to ignore the warnings because they think their political opposites are lying and exaggerating. Not that they are out to get you, but a lot of people want to just be left alone like me for instance. I don't see any nazi marching to get me, I don't see anyone being thrown in fema camps, but all you hear from the left is that any day now trumps is gonna snap his fingers and become a dictator. It just gets old fast, especially when the orange turd can't even get any of his bills past congress. So I would say no the right and left are not enemies, and I would have to think hard on what I consider a patriot before I would broadly generalize and say none I disagree with are patriots. But they should be allies, to bad people would rather fight and bicker over which team is on top, instead of actually speaking to one another. See I'm just starting to realise we are all part of the problem and if we don't work together this could all end in mass bloodshed, which I hope is the last thing most people want.
It's more that Trump has taken actions to seize more power and ignore some of the checks and balances of the government. He's not going to become a dictator over night, but his actions are very dictatory, but he sucks as a dictator even if he is one, so I don't think we'll have a problem anytime soon.
Okay, I'm going to be this guy because every time "legalize prostitution" comes up in a comment section there is zero dissent, so I'm going to offer some.
I want to preface this with the fact I have no moral qualms whatsoever with sex workers or their clients. As long as everyone is of age and nobody is being coerced I could give a shit. I have friends who have been sex workers.
That said, there is a large, growing, body of research that shows the legalization of prostitution can increase the existence of sex trafficking. The causal mechanism being a variety of things which includes the induced demand for sex work that legalization causes thus creating a vacuum in the market that sex traffickers can fill (which is often cheaper than licensed brothels) source
So it appears to me that there are conflicting concerns here. Who do you want to protect? Sex workers from violent johns? or women (often poor, immigrant women) kidnapped by international crime syndicates for sex slavery?
I'm not going to pretend to have the answers here, but I do want to inject this research into the conversation because legalization of sex work does come with real social costs.
Edit: Woof, I've gotten some nasty pm's to this. I understand why people can get emotional about this issue, its a serious issue and is worth considering. I would like to point out that I A: Did not take a position on this and B: Only posted research to add to the discussion. I'm not a christian, I'm not anti-sex, I don't hate sex workers. Please cool it.
I remember reading something about that, however I believe that study was based on one city legalizing prostitution and the surrounding area had not legalized it. Therefore many people went to the city to get a prostitute which increased the demand to far outweigh the supply of women. But I think if you legalized it in all places you would find the supply would meet the demand. As for human trafficking it would be hard to compete with places that offer guarantees like no STDs and such.
So you’re saying we should just believe that there’s evidence against someone without the actual evidence there? Lol ok
Seeing as there have been people who have been indicted and some have plead guilty and more and more people close to trump have been investigated it really lends to the evidence that the investigation is finding things that lead to these actions. They aren't just blindly indicting people and ordering search warrants to be carried out. I think it's pretty clear that something is up. And trumps responses to what's been happening look like somebody who knows they are guilty but are trying to play innocent. Trump is still talking about firing Mueller which is an action that suggests he has something to hide. I don't think that Mueller would openly share evidence against trump until he has enough to indict him and knows he'll be found guilty.
I used to life guard and I had to save a kid from this exact situation. He was legitimately drowning himself by hanging on the lane line and leaning back and submerging his head. It was only 3 feet of water, and he was wearing floaties.
There is a little truth to it but only a little.
Where this really comes from is women being able to go through life passively and wait for the right guy to approach them. Men can't do this unless they are really attractive or happy to crack onto good female friends if they realise there is attraction there.
I'm a guy in the US, and I was 100% passive and my wife first contacted me, initiated the relationship, and proposed to me. I'm not particularly attractive.
Seeing as the Wii emulator can render all of these in widescreen HD with improved texture rendering and AA, I don't see it being to hard to port them and improve graphics.
There are also people who don't appear to be working hard. I developed schizophrenia about the same time as I was forced out into the world with just my wife in my life, and from the outside it would look like I wasn't trying at life at all. But the reality was that I was struggling to just maintain a sense of reality and to do whatever was necessary to not experience life as hell 24/7. It really pisses me off when people act like people who are suffering are doing so of their own accord because they aren't choosing to be successful. You must have barely interacted with the world and people, but at the same time think you are wise, to act like that. What unintelligent behavior.
Well I think it would technically be ageist to focus on children's rights exclusively, however I don't think that means it's wrong. While there are many groups that are suffering, you can only help so many people. Typically people choose what they are passionate about or have some attachment to as the group they help. So while helping one group is technically showing favor to them over other groups, its just a human limitation and doesn't mean that person shouldn't help the group they are. I think with feminism it should be "Feminism favors helping women, so we should make a group that addresses men's needs specifically as well." Not that feminism shouldn't exist or that it has to include men, but that others need to provide help to men independently of feminism.
Now what does it mean when outs blinking fast but no bulbs are out?
Check your fuse panel, the blinkers are controlled by a flasher relay which can be found on the fuse panel. It’s a cheap part at any auto parts store.
thank you, I will do that.
so i read that full comment and the main thing i came away thinking was to wonder why you feel able to make statements so sweeping about different relationship styles. I understand where you're coming from, that growing together is a very powerful way to build a long and happy relationship. I would, however, counter that by saying many monogamous relationships fail or the participants keep it going despite unhappiness. I wouldn't suggest that monogamy is the cause of that, just that it clearly isn't a balm to suit every person.
To my mind, your comment could be changed to a deeply disturbing one by swapping out the word sex for the word friendship. Imagine someone who felt that your entire emotional need should only be satisfied by one person, that if you felt the need for platonic companionship outside of your primary relationship, that that somehow reflects poorly on the relationship. Most people would agree that was absurd, why should one person be enough? maybe you enjoy the occasional trip to the theatre but your wife can't stand the theatre, so you go with a friend, nothing wrong with that and more importantly means nothing about the validity or strength of the marriage.
I'd argue the same about sex, that there's no reason to limit your choices for pleasure, assuming your partner has the same thinking and as long as the communication is strong and consistent.
Not everyone would agree with that but not everybody has to. We live in a world where monogamy is the socially accepted norm, i'm not suggesting that be changed, just that people who feel that their sexuality is broad and can encompass more than one person will feel that way regardless, so forcing them to conform to a model they don't associate with can only lead to pain.
True some people are unhappy and monogamous, I think finding someone compatible enough to achieve that kind of relationship is rare. So honestly being in a casual open relationship might be the best some people can achieve.
However I think you are making a false equivalency with the friendship example. Sex on a chemical biological level is different than friendship. For example did you know you can judge genetic compatibility with someone by how well you enjoy french kissing each other? And that a lover's body odor can calm you down and relieve the stress response? Well sex has many of those reactions as well. One of the big ones is oxytocin release. When you have sex and especially after cuming, your oxytocin levels shoot up and that causes you to bond with that person. Have consistent sex with that person and it will be nearly impossible not to form a romantic emotional attachment to that person. I'm not saying emotional attachments to other people are bad but that these kind are forced on you even if you intend to have casual just physical sex. And as you bond to the other person your biology starts to match up making you less and less biologically compatible with your current partner. Now if your partner knows of this and doesn't mind possibly losing you to someone else, I don't see a problem, but I would argue that the love they have for you isn't very strong. The strongest bonds I've seen are where the other person literally completes the partner. When it's like that giving them up is nearly impossible and both people would suffer from the break. I think a lot of the pain of many breakups is simply the disruption of what's normal. You have Incorporated the other person into your life so much that you're lost at first without them. Even if there was unhappiness and the break ends up being good it's still jarring. But the people who complete each other are shells of what they were after a breakup. They never really perform to the same level as they would have if they stayed together. I think in cases where it's this type of bond, that you have a responsibility to yourself and the other person to maintain and nurture the relationship so that you can both thrive. It's not worth the cheap thrill of sex when there's a possibility it will forcibly pull you apart from the other person. Even if you can change enough to find happiness with a new person, it's still cruel to abandon your partner. And I think it's a selfish pursuit in cases like that. I firmly believe you should put your partner above yourself and they should do the same for you. It's just a more productive process when there's a third party perspective looking out for you. So while you may be sacrificing pleasure, it's to build a better existence overall. I truly believe in situations where two people are perfect dualities you'll find more happiness from nurturing that versus fulfilling carnal desires. So I think we are probably just thinking of different types of love and relationships.
I think on the whole you're right, we are talking about different kinds of relationships. The reality is that most people simply won't find someone who fulfills every desire you have.
I do agree that sex and friendship are different, but not in so many ways. Friendship usually comes with regular close contact, facilitating lots of unconcious bonding- through from what i can see, that claim about body odour relieving stress is based off of one fairly small study, but tbh it strikes me as very plausible. However i'm not really sure what your claim here is based on:
<And as you bond to the other person your biology starts to match up making you less and less biologically compatible with your current partner
As far as i'm aware people bond through a great many concious and unconcious cues, but i've never seen anything that suggests that, bilogocially speaking, bonding with one person makes you less compatible for another, so yeah i'm not really sure i can buy into the conclusion that follows, that a partner who willingly allows you to explore your sexuality either doesn't mind losing you or just doesn't live you that much.
Ultimately I think it comes down to different strokes for different folks. If you can't imagine conducting your relationships any other way then that's ok, but i've known at least one person who loved her boyfriend more than anything, but felt trapped within the bounds of monogamy. You i suppose would say that means that she couldn't have really loved him that much, but i would say that who she is as a person was incompatible within the accepted relationship norm, she forced herself to ignore the feelings and honestly it was fine, the relationship was happy but she'd always wish that she could do more but as you correctly say, she put her partner before her own pleasure. I would argue that she could have had her cake and eaten it too, if she'd been able to communicate with her partner.
I just meant you would bond more and more with someone the more sex you had. What happens when that bond gets as strong or stronger than the one you have with your partner? I just think it creates the potential for you to maybe choose another person to love instead of them one day, and I think that's something where your partner would really only be undamaged by that if they were already okay with you leaving or weren't attached enough to you to try and keep you with them. If that's not the case they'll probably be hurt greatly by that scenario.
As for your friend scenario. How would you communicate to someone that you want to be penetrated by other people who are just viewing the act as a sexual gratification. I don't know how you would cope knowing that something you consider a sacred prescious entity is going to be used as a sex toy for some strangers pleasure. From what I gathered while tripping on lsd and communicating with some sort of higher consciousness as well as achieving Nirvana through sex and meshing my soul with my wife's. It's most probable that sex has much greater meaning spiritually. It's literally penetrating into somebody and mixing energies. So I really think a casual encounter can effect you greatly and based on a person's energy at the time it might be something that stays with you for a while. To do something so intimate and impacting with basically a stranger over the one that loves you is a hard pitch to make to someone. Especially when the reasoning is fulfilling primal desires.
I think about it from my dog's perspective. He is an intelligent self aware being and has emotions and feelings and wants and desires just like a human does. I chose to make him live at my house, he didn't pick it for himself. So I believe I have a duty to contribute to my dogs happiness the same way I would a person living with me. Because of this I let him on the furniture. My dog really enjoys cuddling and interacting with people. Having his company on the couch is well worth some scratches or hair. Would you ban a small child from enjoying the same privileges as you for the sake of convenience? A dog can be as intelligent as a 2.5 year old child. Even young children like that will feel negatively when they know they are being excluded from something even if they don't understand why. A dog is no different. I feel an obligation to consider my dogs feelings and I know it would feel bad for him if I didn't let him join us on the couch. Same goes for the bed. My dog loves human touch when he's trying to sleep. He'll curl up in a perfect circle in between my legs always making contact, and if I move he'll readjust to be touching me. I think that's the cutest thing ever and it can be comforting to me as well when I'm having a hard time sleeping. Plus if you even try to kick him out he'll get super mouthy and hold a small grudge against you, and I like to be in my dogs favor. We have a mutual level of respect and understanding for each other and it's a bond I cherish deeply. I guess what I'm saying is that the way you view dogs is keeping you from experiencing that level of closeness and possibly upsetting your dog.
Hopefully that makes sense, feel free to comment and ask questions if something is unclear.
It really depends on the location, the school, the teacher, and the willingness of the class to think critically. For example I was in fast paced classes from grade school through high school and there was a drastic difference between those and regular classes. My calc class and teacher didn't just teach shortcuts and how to get the right answer for the test, but actually taught us how everything was derived and what the meaning behind it was. That takes a lot of critical thinking to learn. Other people had regular classes and got A's but didn't understand anything about the math and just knew how to recognize certain cases and use formulas to solve them. That has little critical thinking. That was in the same school one classroom apart. So would you say that the school teaches critical thinking or not? For some yes, others no.
As for having a critical thinking class, the closest I've had to that was rhetoric at the University of Iowa with Lina Maria Ferrera. We straight up learned about propaganda and rhetorical techniques and then analyzed the current media for them. You'd be surprised just how much Nazi propaganda is being reused by people like Glen Beck and other right wing hosts. Not that all the mainstream media doesn't use propaganda... They do, but it's interesting to see the systems behind the worst of them at play. That class gave me a better understanding of the world than all of my previous schooling combined and that was just a result of an extremely passionate teacher. So it took all the way until college for the education system to think we were worthy of that level of information. I think part of that is because when your in high school and below your not an independent adult. People generally believe things like political alignments and personal matters are not to be influenced by public entities but by parents. I can only imagine the shit show that would happen if a conservative family's child came home with liberal biased school work. There would be so many enraged parents. If nothing else schools don't want to deal with that drama. I think we would have to admit as a society that there are more qualified people to teach and raise a kid than their parents. But right now parents are extremely possessive of their children. Go ahead and critique someone's parenting style and see how they react. But once you get to college it's not the parents that your responsible to, it's the students. That's why people become more liberal after attending college. Not because there's some sort of brainwashing going on, but because professors can finally attack faulty thinking and illogical beliefs in their classes.
So I think I addressed most of what you were talking about. Feel free to pick it apart and ask clarifying questions.
What are your thoughts on philosophy/logic classes? Are those not critical thinking classes?
I have to come in here and say it really depends on the specific class. The one philosophy class I took in college was garbage. We just memorized philosophies from famous philosophers and regurgitated it back on tests. I tried to lead a discussion once where I argued human behavior based on evolutionary forces and the teacher replied "So you think we came from monkeys?!" and the whole class laughed and my whole argument was ignored. So not much critical thinking there, but I've had friends who were in much better classes. I think this is a pretty widespread problem too because of how teachers are paid. You're not going to get well educated passionate teachers for as little pay as possible. Especially when budgets for philosophy and such are already smaller than core academics.
This was horrific to read. I'm so sorry you dealt with that abuse.
I hope you've been able to break the cycle of pursuing relationships with monstrous humans.
Wait, that's abuse?
How long is appropriate? What are you basing that choice/decision on?
I dunno, a few years of rehabilitation maybe. I don't believe in locking people up for a long time just because they go against society's morals. But I still can't find what he actually did.
Uhh what the fuck? This guy is a monster and you're defending him...
Nobody's a monster. Hurting people doesn't make you a monster. But I don't know what exactly he did.
This report doesn't surprise me.
I know where my foot rests on the pedal at 30mph but with 20 I need to keep checking the speedo which removes my attention from the road.
And of course there's those drivers that feel the need to tailgate and/or overtake because they want to do 25.
F*ck me for driving safely and in accordance with the law, right.
Fuck you I've got places to be. If you're not going to go at least 5 over stay off the road.
It's a fucking fish. Who cares what you do to it, it's not even remotely conscious.
Yeah, who cares that it was dragged and tortured and died an extremely painful death purely for the entertainment of some entitled assholes.
It feels pain but it doesn't suffer it's too dumb.