Does it suck to hear “All men are predators” if you’re a good one? Sure. But at the same time, people have no issues claiming all brown guys are terrorists or illegals. Or women are gold diggers. Or whores.
You literally just made my point for me. Every last one of those examples is wrong in exactly the same way. Or are you defending all of those as acceptable generalizations? You’re cool with men going around saying “All women are whores” and that just being an acceptable thing?
Sure but there’s a world of difference between “women need to be cautious around men” and “all men are predators”. One is an unfortunate but reasonable statement while the other is a discriminatory generalization. The former could honestly just be rephrased as “people need to be cautious around strangers” and it would be just as accurate.
The problem with statistics like “There’s a sexual assault every 68 seconds” is that they sound really bad but you can do essentially the exact same exercise with any sufficiently large population and come up with similarly scary sounding numbers. E.G. There’s a car crash every 13 seconds.
As for the bear analogy, while I’m sure there are plenty of circumstances in which a individual bear wouldn’t attack someone, as you spend more time around any given bear the likelihood of it attacking you approaches 100% even more so when taken as a population. The same does not hold true around men. There are billions of men on this planet the vast overwhelming majority of which are not a danger to women.
I don’t know this man, or those men, but statistics say 92.1 % of sexual offenders are men
Just like the example of African American crime there’s a lot more to this statistic. For instance is that number so high because most men don’t report sexual assaults therefore skewing the number of women sexual offenders down? There are lots of complicating societal factors there. Regardless that doesn’t justify the sweeping generalization that “all men are predators” or even the slightly weaker “most men are predators”, as very obviously the majority are not.
They’re likely basing it on a verse (that I don’t have handy at the moment) but it says something to the effect that if a mans wife is raped by someone he has to pay a certain amount of silver to the husband in compensation. I couldn’t tell you if it was old testament or not (probably though, sounds very old testament). I think the way it’s phrased was something like “if a man lays with another man’s woman, he must pay him X whatever”.
Uh… What’s the tea app?
Edit: from what I can gather based on the last link attached to this post it seems to be some kind of app for women to talk about men they’ve dated. Why that needs drivers license uploads is a whole other question and definitely should have raised some massive red flags for anyone thinking about using it.
And if you think. “All men are rapists” is a sane and reasonable statement you’re definitely a misandrist and just as wrong as the misogynists.
It’s the bit about claiming all men are a threat. That’s just as wrong as claiming all black people are criminals because they have the largest proportion of incarcerations (and yes I know that’s got a lot more to do with systemic racism than anything else, but that’s kind of the point). Blanket statements based on gender, ethnicity, or even age are wrong even when it’s a minority making a blanket statement about the majority.
When you blindly attack everyone all that does is discourage anyone from wanting to help you, even those that agree with many of your points. Making far reaching easily disprovable blanket statements is not how you go about collecting allies to try to fix societies problems.
It looks a lot like their smart TV interface which has always been less functional than their web or mobile app interface. They’re probably trying to cut the UI down to just the bare minimum that the majority of casual users regularly use. In part I’d assume to reduce the maintenance overhead, but I’m sure it likely will also make things harder for ad blockers.
What the shit is this? This reads like psychotic ramblings, like the time cube guy or TempleOS. I’m like 90% sure whoever created that site has schizophrenia.
Sometimes mandatory arbitration doesn’t work out so well for companies either as Valve found out. When they run into what are effectively class action lawsuits but they get forced into individual arbitration with hundreds of thousands of people that clause starts to look really dumb.
He’s a moron that doesn’t understand economics and ignores the advice of anybody smarter than him (which is pretty much everyone). He has an incredibly simplistic concept of how domestic markets work and doesn’t even remotely understand international trade. All he sees is the word “deficit” in “trade deficit” and thinks that means the US isn’t getting paid for its exports. It’s why he’s so hung up on the concept of tariffs (which also don’t work like he thinks they do).
The only thing Trump has ever understood is how to rip people off. If he had been born to someone poor Trump would be running the sleaziest used car lot for a thousand miles around somewhere.
Don’t forget medical expenses as well. The cost of living in the US has been on the rise for decades while wages have remained flat. The simple reality is while the US economy has continued to improve, only the rich have benefited from that and it’s approaching the point where the majority of the US population literally can not afford to live in the US. The oligarchs are going to be forced to share that wealth or the entire US economy will collapse and they won’t like what happens when a large, angry, and very well armed population decides they’re tired of living off the crumbs that fall off the plates of an incredibly tiny group of the ultra wealthy.
Just going to ignore everything I said that proves you wrong? OK, you do you and keep being wrong, I’ll keep driving legally and keep my perfect driving record.
The only good thing about all this I suppose is I learned not needing to use turn signals in turn only lanes is a unique thing to my state, it seems like most other states do require them.
Anyway if all you’re going to do is keep saying wrong and re-quote the same debunked statement there’s not really anything left to say.
Turn signals are required, but not in a turn only lane. The question asked and answered wasn’t what’s being talked about here. Also it’s trivially demonstrable that turn signals are not required “anytime you are changing direction” in your vehicle otherwise you’d be constantly turning them off and on just driving down any random road as it curves back and forth. They’re required when you depart one lane for a different one. In a turn only lane you never depart the lane, it just becomes another lane. Finally quoting cops is a terrible defense as cops are per court decisions not actually required to know the law which is super fucked up, but that’s an entirely different discussion.
The clauses apply if the first one does which it doesn’t. Since you’re never turning from a direct course you don’t need to signal in the manner the following clauses describe. Since you’re never leaving the direct course, there’s no need to signal otherwise you’d need to use your turn signal every time you turn the wheel on your car even if you’re just following the road (which is what you’re doing in a turn only lane). You need to signal when entering the turn lane, but once in the lane you’re just following the lane (the direct course) and therefore don’t need to signal.
Yes because it’s irrelevant. The first clause failing means subsequent clauses don’t apply. Because a signal isn’t necessary it doesn’t matter how far back you don’t signal for.
The fundamental flaw with the phone system is it’s all or nothing. It’s difficult to get in, but once you’re in there’s zero controls (DNS used to and somewhat still does also suffer from this).
TL;DR: Small study of only 3 out of 100 brands on the market, so limited inference can be drawn but cheap construction leaches toxic substances into the liquid in ways that older non-disposable vapes don’t. In terms of health risk non-disposable vapes are best followed by a tie between traditional cigarettes and disposable vapes.
Looks awesome, but unfortunately seems to only be for the UK and EU. I wish the US market would get something similar.
The only law in my state that requires usage of turn signals states this:
No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
The key there is “direct course”. The direct course in a dedicated turn lane is the turn, so no signal is required. If it’s a turn or straight lane it is required as in that case the direct course is straight.
You’re putting a bunch of words in my mouth here. I never said any of the things you’re claiming and this feels like moving the goal posts. My issue, was the assertion made in the post that “all men are predators”. There may or may not have been more context to that, but since that was all we were given that’s all we can go on. Either you believe that is an accurate and true assertion, in which case you disagree with me and really do believe all men are predators, or you agree with me that that is not an accurate and true assertion.
The rest of your post basically boils down to “you’re not allowed to defend against gender based discrimination unless and until you can show that you’re doing everything you possibly could to fix all of societies gender related problems”. If we all adopted that same premise nothing would ever improve. Or should we start demanding to see peoples credentials when they call out sexism, racism, fascism, etc. on the internet? Have you done everything you could to stop sexual assault? Have you been writing letters every day to your senators and congressmen to encourage new laws or reforms? Staging protests? Maybe working at abuse shelters? No? Well, seems like you don’t have the right to participate in this discussion then by your logic.
No, I didn’t. That was literally the point being argued over. I never claimed that there aren’t details missing or that there’s no potential subtlety here, in fact I very much agree with that, but that still doesn’t excuse broad discriminatory statements.
Had that point been made originally, that there’s missing context and we don’t know what the interaction was up to that point that would be one thing. I never said I thought OP was a good guy, I was just pointing out that saying “all men are predators” is sexual discrimination and wrong, just like the example given in another reply of “all women are whores” is also wrong.
You don’t stop discrimination by giving the minority group a free pass to engage in discrimination as long as it’s targeted at the majority. I would be making the same point (significantly more so) had OP been making discriminatory statements about women, the difference is I wouldn’t need to be defending myself from all of you. You should maybe think about that.