Raider5678

By the fact he owns businesses. Come on now, don't abandon all logical common sense. He is a businessman.

Anyone who reads the thread also realizes you're wrong here. Because she was an actress. And you're getting worse. At which point is admitting you're wrong and changing what you said when someone corrects you considered bad?

1. My god, you're worse than half the idiots at my school. At the very least look and see I corrected myself and admitted my mistake. 2. At no point did I call her supporters snobs. But, when someone jumps out and says I did, and I say I'll ignore them for having no basis in reality, I"M the one that must learn. Additionally, I ignored it so that I could at least attempt to stop a very blatant hijacking of a thread. Rather than get into an argument. However, it appears hijacking is allowed as long as enough people get emotionally vested into it doesn't it? Fair enough. However, that was in reference to the echo chambers that social media uses. http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ My total ignorance of the person was the fact I knew she wasn't a politician. Therefore, in my mind, not qualified. What you call Hyper-partisanship, I call logic. Additionally, we've already gotten over the point that I was mistaken about her job. She was an actress, she is also a talk show host, which I basically equate to fairly close to actress in the sense it's on TV and people watch her. I'm sure you've never ever made a mistake about someone.

I'll ignore this. It's literally so far off from what anyone on here has even said, you're just looking to start a petty argument and throw a tantrum.

My bad. I thought she was a singer. Actress* Also, one of her quotes: Surround yourself with only people who are going to lift you higher. Sounds familiar. Either way, someone is always intelligent if they agree with you right?

My opinion is that why Donald Trump wasn't anywhere near qualified enough, he's still 10 times more qualified than a pop singer. Additionally, we're being ridiculed for the election of someone totally unqualified. Imagine if we did it simply because they were a famous singer. That would be even worse. It doesn't matter the party they belong to when you get to that point. Trump at the very least knew the business of economics. Whether he was good at it or not he at least knew it. A pop singer? Come on.

By questions that are being asked, you must mean fingerpointing. Okay, now I'm actually going.

Let's start with the opening statements of the very first song. "I believe that women have the right to walk the streets at night without being afraid for their lives." "And I believe a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body without suffering the judgement of the conservative right." "And I believe a woman has the right to wear the clothes she likes without being treated like dirt." Pretty clear that the blame is on the conservative right here. And since you are posting this, I'm assuming you believe him. And since it's also pretty clear you disagree with Zapatos and the others I mentioned, it's pretty clear this is what you believe they're doing. If this isn't, then why are you posting meaningless pointless videos that don't really offer anything to the discussion? And read again, that was your mentality, based on the video. Unless the video had absolutely nothing to do with your opinions? In which case, why are you even posting it? 1. Forget the rape culture thing, I don't even remember what I meant by it. 2. I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall. Except at least a brick wall listens. 3. Refer to point #2. This thread is going nowhere. Nobody can get above any debate that doesn't involve finger pointing. Literally, they've been pointed out repeatedly by multiple people and it just goes back to the same thing, and then blame the other side for not allowing the discussion to move forward and wasting everyone's time. So I'm out. Because in this thread, A = B, B = C, C is larger then A, and D is larger than C and smaller then A.

Previous suggestions included: Not stopping current precautions* such as making sure others know where you are if you are alone, avoiding men known to harass, avoiding risky situations like dark alleys in crime areas, etc. At no point did anyone say women should dress more modestly except for once. And that was in reference to the woman walking around topless at the music festival. And while you may be offended by that and start saying we think women should line up to our views of modesty, I 100% guarantee you that we don't think men should be walking around with their dicks hanging out. Which is where the argument that we only want to control women falls apart. *this is what spawned the debate in the first place. That by saying women should not stop current precautions, we were advocating for more additional mandatory precautions. And in an attempt to steer the conversation away from this topic, because it's basically a bunch of people who mostly agree with each other arguing, into something more productive, please don't reply to this post.

Clearly. Zapatos, StringJunky, Gees, MisterMack, and I, are all the far conservative right who judge women based on what they wear and treat them like dirt. Zapatos, StringJunky, Gees, MisterMack, and I, are all the far conservative right who don't believe a woman should be allowed to not be raped. That video perfectly sums up your mentality. "You do not agree perfectly with me, therefore you disagree with everything I believe in, and are an evil disgusting human pig who doesn't deserve the right to live. Because in the end, it is I who decides what is right and what is wrong, and who is good and who is evil,"

Agreed. However, it's like pouring fuel on the fire. Looking back into the previous discussion, when it was brought up, if someone had simply said "I agree we should take precautions, there's no harm from that. But we should focus on X instead" I think we would have long ago moved on from that. Instead, they responded with this "You're justifying the rape culture by saying there's an excuse for men to rape women because women didn't take precautions. Regardless of what you meant" Or something along those lines. Which then resulted in 8 pages of finger pointing at one said saying they're justifying rape culture, and the other side spending 8 pages trying to say they aren't justifying rape culture. You've turned those who proposed a simple and agreed upon idea, into the enemy. That idea was that women should practice risk mitigation while we try to solve this problem. But then anyone who supported this idea was turned into the enemy because they thought it made sense. In this way, the discussion failed to produce a general consensus until after several pages of debate, and even then I don't think we have a general agreement. They talked about it for a single post, with a single person mentioning it, as a side note(go back in the discussion. The original post that brought up risk mitigation wasn't about risk mitigation I believe.) and suddenly they were the enemy. This form of debate, where unless the person is exactly on par with you they are the enemy, is wasting a lot more time. We've(well, the others. I just rejoined) been trying to stop talking about it for several pages. Dude, strange said that factors of clothing are moot in a vast majority of rape cases, and I agreed. And as a result, it's bullshit. Surely you're smarter than that. I know you are. I clearly said that 70% of rapes are a problem, and you're worried about definitions. This is why we aren't currently discussing the more general problem of abuse of power. Additionally, just because the majority of rapes are by someone who they knew, doesn't mean we should ignore the 30%. The same reason we research small diseases even though cancer kills more. "Surely it can't be wrong to look into the 30%?" Evidently, looking into statistics because they might be offensive is bullshit. In an attempt to restore any shred of credibility to this discussion. Can you provide evidence, that in rapes committed by strangers, there is absolutely no correlation to their location? You're the first one to look at my question and scream bullshit. Since you screamed bullshit before I got a chance to even look into the evidence, the burden of evidence is on you.

70% of rapes are by someone the person knows personally anyways. We're focusing on the 30% of rapes committed by strangers, I.E. "the rape culture". No, I am not saying that 70% of rapes are perfectly okay. But you can't really take precautions against those because they're an entirely different scenario. Premeditated, I believe the word is. And while I'm not a criminal psychologist, I think it's safe to assume that when it's premeditated that clothing will have nothing to do with the situation. However, focusing on the 30% of rapes done by complete strangers, perhaps there would be a larger effect when taking risk mitigation. There's very little study into this area, for obvious reasons. Stopping 70% of rapes through risk mitigation is very unlikely. However, surely it can't be wrong to look into the 30%?

Maybe. But in a city with a lot of KNOWN drunk driving, would you think it's wise to warn pedestrians that they should take extra precautions because there's a lot of idiots out there who drive while drunk? Does that somehow give the drunk drivers an excuse?

Nobody seems to disagree we shouldn't take safety precautions against rape. I.E. Don't walk topless through a music festival. I.E. Don't purposefully walk down a dark alley in a city known to be filled with crime, and believe you're perfectly safe. Nobody seems to disagree that women SHOULD NOT HAVE TO take safety precautions. I.E. Men shouldn't rape women, there's no excuse. I.E. Men are under complete control of their body. I.E. The world should be different. We do seem to disagree whether mentioning the idea of Safety precautions is good or not. I.E. Party 1 says it's an excuse to say women should take these safety precautions, Party 2 says it's simply a fact of life that women should take these safety precautions. But we don't disagree that ideally, women shouldn't have to take these safety precautions. So, this discussion is going in a loop, and unless we find a different topic will continue to follow the above loop, like a faulty computer code. Well, that's totally not offensive in any way.

Because if you read the part you quoted: "There is point in trying to stop them." Then you'll realize that what you posted is literally contradicting exactly what he said. Think of it this example. Person 1: "Snakes bite people. There is point in trying to stop them. But don't hold your breath. The results won't be very noticeable at first." Person 2: "So you're saying there is no point in trying to stop them?" This is literally what happened. You're reasonable, and I'm certain you can see how quickly your logical process falls apart put into this context. Now apply it to the discussion, and suddenly it makes no sense. You're saying "He means A = B" by quoting him saying "I don't mean A = B" It makes no sense.

He didn't say that it was an excuse to go through with it. He very explicitly said: without actually going down that road, or getting anywhere near it.

Yep. https://shop.mantoncork.com/4x5x1-2-inch-thick-cork-sheets/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAyszSBRDJARIsAHAqQ4p-K9OuPNi8uoyVye-GzMUbkINUuJARRcUnJVgPMY3AoGfa91wuURIaAiQlEALw_wcB

Ah, makes sense. I'm usually around 27 - 29 year's old when participating in a work or school environment, however when I'm relaxing and doing nothing I revert to the usual thing any 15-year-old teenage boy does in his free time and surfs the web. Additionally when I'm trying to convince someone older than me of something I turn into 600-year-old budda and spout of wise sayings one after another in an effort to garner respect and trust. And then there's also the occasional mood swings where I have a bad mood and act like a 3-year-old. You? Sorry. That sounds like it was laced with sarcasm. It was intended to be humorous.

Not to be rude, but, how old are you?

Precisely. My grandpa spent the last 40 years doing this type of stuff. Sells benches, chests, chairs, etc, by the order, for close to $500 a piece. It's more than just a art, it's a way of life for some. Also, he's going on 96 years old and still rides motorcycles. You're onto something when you say there's a certain zen about it. Very possible, and quite likely. I haven't inspected it closer. You've already got a better eye then me.

Yeah. However, when working with finger joints, measure twice and cut once. If it's too tight, you can alway's cut a little off. If it's too loose, you can't fix it. Actually, make that a tip for ANY project. Measure twice cut once. Forgot to mention with staining, don't forget to sand. It makes a massive difference. Especially with things that others will be touching. That's not one I personally made, that's an online example. However, I've made them before and have seen a lot made by others who live near me. But in all likely hood, it is a dowel. It's also possible it's something else but I wouldn't have any idea what it could be.

If you're making a frame or something, it often looks MUCH better if you make the edges end in a 45 degree angle, so that they all fit together as a slant. Also, if you're avoiding screws, it's also interesting to learn how to fit wood together like this: This way you can avoid using wood glue. Often, it'll be a tight fit that you have to tap together with a hammer, but the idea that you made something without any glue, nails, or screws, is a good feeling. Additionally, stain and varnish can go a LONG way in making finished products look beautiful. But make sure to only apply stain lightly unless you want REALLY dark wood. Also, avoid allowing stain to "pool" up. It'll result in these: Which in my opinion look ugly. Those blotches. But others disagree. It's up to you. Additionally, a fun project to do is to make a chest. But you'll probably have to use hinges. For that special someone. Note the corners. Anyways, a lot of trial and error is involved.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, it's also why I still support the death penalty. And the fingers for fondles program presented by iNow.

In the Youth and Government program, that I participate in, this is the case. Minus the fingers for fondles exchange program. However, you should also note, I and quite a few other guys I know have been "fondled"(touching of sexual areas by someone of the opposite sex without direct invitation). Guy's just don't seem to mind as much. Can't imagine a reason.... So be careful about who you're trying to stop there. Age limits?

It has more to do with a thinking A.I. than a working one. You've probably heard of the simulated universe theory, and this is basically that. Additionally, CERN does not simulate quintillions of atoms at a time.