zapatos

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-constantly-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-are-kinda-jerks-scientists-find

As far as I can tell you don't offend anyone here. A single person got a little twisted due to what appears to be a bit of a weakness of his own; you were just the person who brought his weakness to light. Everything since has been poking fun at his assertion, not at you. The idea that people can benefit from their physical attributes (height, looks, hair, etc.) is not surprising and would probably make a pretty interesting thread. What I found annoying about this whole thing was the assumption that your positive reputation was due simply to your physical attributes and not the content and style of your posts, and that I (and people like me) only gave you positive rep because I am overwhelmed by testosterone. The majority are quite happy to have you here.

"Opinionated posts" always get the most up votes (or down votes for that matter). Doesn't matter if you are male or female. If you mostly post in Religion, Ethics, and Politics, you are going to get a higher percentage of reputation votes. It never ceases to amaze me how concerned people are about Reputation, although typically they complain that they are treated poorly, rather than someone else being treated too well. Being 'upset' that someone else does well when they don't meet your criteria for praise reeks of jealousy. Thanks for the tips on who I should and should not spend my Reputation votes on, but I'm old enough to make my own decisions.

Unbelievable.

It may be that if one person in the school got it then everyone got it, but it only occurred in every fiftieth school.

I've always thought of deists as people who believe in God but don't believe in a religion. Back in the day I was a deist. I didn't find any objects to be sacred. I followed no rituals. I never prayed or felt my morals came from God. I've always thought that religion involved more than just a belief in God.

So if I read that right, they are saying to the Massachusetts Court that they may be able to still rule that stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment, but not using the current argument. Did I understand that correctly? And on another note they mentioned 'bearable arms'. Does this imply that guns that cannot be 'carried', such as tanks, would not be allowed under the Second Amendment?

I am not stressed about it because I keep a few things in mind: 1. The market does two things; it goes up and it goes down. If you know that going in it won't bother you when it does one or the other. 2. In the long run, the market makes money. I only invest for the long run, so I don't care when my wealth goes down as I know it will go back up eventually. 3. In the long run, you cannot do better than the market. So I don't try to do better. I mostly invest in index funds, which mimic the markets. My average annual return is something less than the overall S&P average growth rate. I am not good at it, I just follow a strategy that lets me make a reasonable amount of money with minimal effort and stress.

Not being objective is bad, no matter what the reason. I don't think I mentioned treating anyone a certain way except for treating them fairly. 'Objective' and 'Fair' are synonyms. If you are not treating people fairly, you are not being objective. By definition. I agree that the people of Ferguson have been treated unfairly for a long time. A good argument can be made to support your assertion, although as usual you make it sound like every member of the police force and all of their officials were unfair. I doubt you could support that if that is indeed what you are implying.

Because that is what happens when you don't treat people fairly.

I've been investing in the Dow, the S&P, Mutual Funds, and Government Bonds for 30 years now. I can't say I've ever been "nervous, anxious, crazy". I thought perhaps you were investing in some very risky markets or individual stocks of leading edge start ups.

No, the problem is that you believe that you are NEVER wrong, and that only you really understands. You let emotion get in the way of logic. Bullying others only adds to the problem. The world is not so simple as you think it is which means by default you often miss the subtleties.

You've taken my statement out of context. I am NOT asking that we treat the police fair in the Michael Brown case. That case is over. I was responding to MigL's statement that we should be careful not to mistreat others in an attempt to ensure fairness for minorities. I was agreeing with his sentiment and using the Michael Brown case as an example where some people were letting emotion cloud their judgement. That is the exact sentiment that I am suggesting we have to guard against and it scares me that people like you are proponents. It is completely at odds with the concept of Blackstone's Formulation that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

What market are you in?

"Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love." -W. Allen

I didn't know so many people were racists...

Yes, but don't be confused. They are talking about their freedoms and personal rights, not the freedoms and personal rights of others. To me that is one of the most hypocritical aspects of the Republican party.

America's Right makes a big thing of patriotism too. It is just that run of the mill Americans also make a big deal of patriotism. We sing the national anthem before sporting events, where everyone is expected to take off their hat and cover their heart. A neighbor of mine has a flag pole and flies the flag daily. When my father in law stays visits his cabin in the woods for the day, he runs the flag up his flag pole. I remember an attempt a while back to pass a Constitutional Amendment to make flag burning (a form of speech interestingly enough) illegal.

It's been my experience that the Stars and Stripes in the background is just part of the look for politicians. If you want to portray the image of a family man you have your child in the photo. If you want to be portrayed as patriotic, you have a flag in the background. If you watch closely you'll often see politicians mimicking the flag themselves; wearing navy blue suits, white shirts, and a tie with red in it. No doubt the extreme right loves to fly the flag, but for politicians it seems more image setting. Seems that way to me anyway.

Now where did I ever get the idea you might not always be fair? You've beaten me into submission. I withdraw.

You do realize that knocking me down is not the same thing as lifting you up, right? You can analyze what I've said over my entire life if you'd like. Despite the litany of my many character flaws that you've pointed out, I stand by my statement that you appear to be a threat to fairness and equality. If you want to say that I talk like a racist, speculate about the facts, excuse monger for the police, my mental ability is lacking, am ridiculous and nonsensical, a liar, offensive, 'stereotypical racial bigot and excuse mongerer' (probably my favorite portrayal of me), etc., then knock yourself out. I don't intend to enter into a debate with you about the quality (or lack thereof) of my character and integrity.

Calling me a racist makes you no less a threat to fairness and equality. Perhaps if your posting style contained more facts and fewer unsupported suppositions you wouldn't come across as you do.

I really don't think he was saying that.

Ignoring the problem won't help with Trump any more than it helps with gun violence or climate change.

Just curious, but as you are in Texas I believe a lot of people are trying to impact your life right now based on their religious beliefs. Is that something that impacts you? Are you fighting back in any way?