Raider5678

I did not order you, nor did I tell you, to go post in another thread. I said I believed posts relating to the topic of simply complaining, without actually offering relevant facts for discussion, are better suited for the thread "How does Trump annoy you?"

There is another thread called "How does Trump annoy you?" I believe replies like this are better suited for that. There is a saying that given enough time, a democracy will sell it's right's to the highest bidder. Actually, many of the people that originally supported Trump no longer support him. Leading me to believe that in all actuality you don't really look into what the other side believes, only that you know they won.

Additionally, the political parties would rather see the other political party win then an independent.

Fair enough. Since I can't prove I didn't cherry pick all of them, then this is the case Outrider presented. https://m.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/woman-who-was-gang-raped-as-a-teenager-calls-to-st/3245561/

I'm questioning the slut-shaming aspect of this. The moment you say "She was asking for it!" is the second you say "I plead guilty!" I looked further into some cases involving "slut shaming" and I no longer agree it was slut shaming. Ultimately, each case came down to Her word against His word. Her word won all of the cases I looked into. Now, most of the defense, they claimed were men just trying to slut shame the girl and that just because she was dressed a certain way etc etc etc. But, that's NOT what they were doing. They were attacking the credibility of the accuser. Because ultimately, if it's just Her word against His word, with very little evidence, what else can you do? The only evidence against the man beside her word is circumstantial evidence. Wrong place, at the wrong time. The defense was trying to prove he did NOT rape her, and in only 1 case(There are more, I only found 1 case where they did this), did they try to prove it was consensual sex(it was a boyfriend & girlfriend.) It was never "she was a slut. It's her fault." it was always "Her story is conflicting, this is a false accusation." Which, in most of the cases, I concur. It seemed like the man raped the girl. But he is still entitled to a defense, and if the ONLY defense is Her word against His, it's always going to be trying to disprove her word. There is a difference between slut shaming, and legally defending the accused. Because legally defending the accused does not include slut shaming, it does, however, include attacking the credibility of the victim, which for some reason is now considered slut-shaming.

I don't know. Wood is at the right energy level to absorb light, so it does, glass is not. Not sure if you can modify that without changing the inherent properties of it.

Very true. However, are there any official court cases of this? Where it actually came into play? I mean, obviously, it'd have to be more extreme than "having breasts" but still. There should be at least 1 court case?

It also included how often men are convicted when accused, and how often women are. The system usually believes the women, whether they are accusing or defending. Hence, not a system that is automatically bent on disbelieving women. Sexual in nature or not.

My response was in the context of a system that disbelieves them by default. The statistics I provided included sexual harrassment.

You completely took that out of context. It was, in fact, in response to inow's statement. Where, it makes complete sense and is relevant to the discussion.

Summarization: It is a 2 second video(exactly, not an exageration) of a man going "Hahahahahahahaha" It's awesome, and a laugh I wish I could reproduce on my own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDwFCoj-0js Click this first^ https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/courts-lenient-sentencing-bond-women Good god man, that is far, far, FAR from even being remotely close to the truth. Well, then I must be one very Naive person. ANyways, SOME beautiful women use their beauty. Not all. Also, for that thing about women being in a room with powerful men and testosterone, refer to the previous youtube link I gave to inow. My thoughts are that women and men have different tools at their disposal, depending on their situation. Most of the time, their tools are the same. Although, it's more likely for women to seduce a man, and him to be weak enough to fall for it, then the other way around. But that's not even a majority or even a large minority. Women think of themselves as victims because often they are the victims. And even when they aren't, society will readily accept it if they say they were the victims. It's a power move, just like any other. And while women can usually pull off the victim scheme much easier than men, it doesn't mean that all women do so. Nor does it even mean that men don't have their own schemes.

1. "This is not the end, it is the beginning of the beginning of the end" ~Every generation for the last 2000 years. 2. Perhaps. But Fermi's paradox is an exercise in futility. We do not, and I suspect ever will, know all the variables in the equation. Therefore, the whimpering of stupid people who just can't figure out why combining religion and politics will not work does not play a factor that I can understand. 3. True in some cases. 4. Very depressing view. Also, that is a very long sentence, I had to read it like 15 times. 5. A broken heart cause this rant or something? Amore' is love in Italian. So if the 4 things proceeding this are love, then I'm assuming something very sad may have happened to someone you loved. Well. Not sad. Horrifically and terribly heartbreaking. Is this the case?

Yes, one step at a time. Firstly, my experiences. I live surrounded by Republicans(or more lately, no longer Republicans but Conservatives) who are very vocal about their political opinions. As a result, I usually know quite well what will go over with Republicans and what won't. I won't even TOUCH the subject of gun control with them, even on very mild grounds. However, other issues, I'm finding that their goals are actually fairly aligned with Democratic goals(quite a few exceptions, but generally, make America a better place, reduce crime, help the poor, etc.) The biggest separation is HOW to do so. So my progress with making this bill pass this mock government is larger with my general intent on educating Republicans on more effective methods. Firstly, like I stated before, make things Hybrid. If you can't make a giant leap all at once, make it a step. I'll give an example. One of the bills presented to me last week was only presented to my delegation. In it, it outlawed the use of solitary confinement entirely. Now firstly, only 7/12 of the kids would have passed it(this was a mock debate session to prepare for the mock government session. Irony). I get this based on what their opinion was. Now it would have passed, but I proposed a simple amendment, and it ended up passing with 12/12 votes(note my delegation is slightly in favor of liberal positions, however, I'm told the mock government session is in favor of conservative positions). My simple change was that rather than entirely outlawing solitary confinement, it limited it to 1 session, no more than 24 hours, once a week at most. Now, this would drastically cut down on solitary confinement still, and just keeping that little amount swayed 5 more kids to vote to approve it. Hence the nothing is absolute and making Hybrids of this process can massively influence support. The main obstacle is not creating an effective method, it's getting people to support it. I've seen this process done on several bills now, and it works quite well on issues that people can be swayed on. For this drug program, we have to create a hybrid on it to get it to pass majorly. I don't like getting it passed by the skin of the teeth, I'd rather see at least 80% of kids supporting a bill, if not more. However, now I have to state the obvious. We have to agree on what we believe would be effective measures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg This video, I think, sums up the basic idea. Do you agree? I know most of this post was related more to the process of convincing people, but I can't stress how important this is in government proceedings, much more than whether the process actually works.

I've brought this subject up to quite a few Republicans before who I know well enough that they respect my opinion on stuff. When I point out more that it's not so much as taking it soft on drugs as trying a different method, and that method is changing their lifestyle, they often believe me. I use Vietnam Veterans as an example, a lot of them used drugs in the war yet when they came back to America and they got out of the highly stressful environment, the majority of them quit. The only thing I could NOT convince them of was that this method was worth the money. To them, they don't associate prison costs as compared to this method. They simply assume that imprisoning them costs virtually nothing but the food they eat and that this method is insanely expensive. So I'd say if you wish to try and convince them, try making the point that it's fiscally more efficient in the long run, then in the short run. Also, another thing that helps, is making hybrids of it. One thing I learned on this site is that there are very few Absolutes. Make exceptions to when it'd be considered criminal, and you'll find you'll garner a LOT more support a lot faster than you'd think. In April I'll spend 3 days participating in a mock government program. If you'd like I'll write a bill up that I believe implements this idea, and present it to them. I'll post it on here in a few days to get your opinion(The OP's) on whether you think it models your idea of a different approach to drugs. I live in PA, and this mock government program is a group of teenagers between 14-19. One thing I know is that a lot of kids my age, their views, their beliefs, are aligned with their parents. It may change when they go to college, but the majority will have the same views as of now. Pennslyvania voted Republican, so I know that a good portion of these kids is probably Republican. Getting it passed, will mean I was able to appeal to their sense of belief, and in my opinion, show that a different approach to drugs may yet be possible. We can't make a leap all at once, and the first step to changing the way we approach drugs is providing an alternative approach to a large portion of people, and making them BELIEVE it can work. Do you agree? If so I'll go ahead and write this bill.

I'm using a small 11 ounce welding oxygen tank, with a small valve feeding into the engine. As I said, yes I'm having trouble finding one that's automatic AND controllable and the right fit.

Hey, the rocket engine is coming along nicely. I'm having some trouble getting the right parts to control the oxygen flow remotely, but it's coming along slowly. No explosions yet, fingers crossed. It's not an explosive mix, just fuel and oxidizer in a confined space......

Touche.

Maybe we should do something about it.

It was meant to be irony.

Firstly, what would be your first step?

"Welcome to the NEW age."