Uh oh…among other crimes, he robbed a cancer patient of the last $75 she had to her name, stole credit cards and IDs and used them to steal thousands, broke into homes and cars, and made and distributed a sex tape of a young underage girl….because of the Boebert’s exceptional family values and a good Christian upbringing.

I think what he's missing is that it wasn't the Millenial kids who asked for an overly insulated upbringing. It was their Boomer parents who put up all the guardrails and made all the rules to protect them from getting their bodies or feelings hurt.

Let's be clear, there were 2 versions of Boomers (early and late):
Boomer 1.0 raised the GenXers and they didn't give a fuck what tree we fell out of or who made fun of us in school.
Boomer 2.0 raised the Millenials and I'll never hate on Millenials because their parents were fuuuuuuuucked up protective.

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

Not all Christians are the same. You can generalize, fairly, about Christians on some theological belief stuff (one God, heaven, Jesus is savior, etc.) but outside of that, we're all different - human beings each shaped by various DNA, character, family, upbringing, history, peers and society.

While it's all great fun mocking the old guy from Up crossed with Statler and Waldorf, it really doesn't gain anything.

People who hate him and Trump will laugh, people who support them will use it as evidence of the vast media conspiracy.

The real trick is actually getting through to people like him. Make him understand why the things he's done are wrong, why housing immigrants in a tent city without adequate protection and little to no recourse for the crimes committed there (including rape) is illegal. He'd probably just point out that the very fact the men are raping the women in an unregulated tent city goes to show how bad the Hispanic gene pool is, never understanding that any large enough group, regardless of ethnicity, upbringing etc. would commit similar crimes if placed under similar circumstances. Hell he defends his pussy-grabbing President out of the opposite corner of his mouth.

Educate your young people, America. Not just in math and science, but in Philosophy. That's the only way to create a morally advanced society. People shouldn't just judge right and wrong by what they're told, they should have an adequate education to figure it out for themselves. He was told (many times) what he was doing was right, so it doesn't matter that a judge came along and handed him a sentence. He believes he's right, simply because he lacks the mental capacity to understand otherwise.

Isn't that right, @bobknight33 ?

Never new Rodney had such a sad upbringing..

In that video, Milo helpfully defines pedophilia, AND YOU STILL GOT IT WRONG. Stop lying, please.

Now to what he was actually talking about: criminal law has to have a stark, black and white line to define an age of consent. I don't see what's wrong with arguing that line is imperfect and some younger people are capable of giving it. I wouldn't go so far as saying that would justify breaking the law. But morally, there is no difference between screwing a minor a day before they turn 18 and the day after. In reality it might very well be completely legal in the next state over.

He is an idiot for even touching this third-rail topic and his jokes about the Father are tone-deaf but maybe that has to do with his British upbringing.

Goooo Raiders!

Wait is this not the NFL? Where we choose a side to root for based on arbitrary allegiances vaguely formed by perception, statistics, personal vendettas and disagreements with opinions, views and a native alliance attributed by regional position and upbringing? Whoever wins the Super Bowl, in the end we're all losers and the cycle will continue in the coming years.

Then again, I'm not one for getting involved in modern media politics. Vote for the least terrible and get back to work!

/Rant

Side note: Where the heck do I get my Trump steaks with Sharper Image (online) no longer carrying them?

@ChaosEngine
I would say you were onto a more useful definition of feminism in the beginning of the thread... all decent human beings in modern times must believe women are people; but they would only be feminists, if they are trying to reshape society's institutions to reflect that. Feminism, as you point out, would then be the civil movement with actual goals to achieve, whereas treating women with decency is a personality trait or a matter of good upbringing, without any specific goals. You can be either decent or a feminist, both, or neither.

A lot of people - conservatives, progressives, religious folk, etc. - believe women are people,* and treat women with respect in individual interactions, because they're decent folk - but they aren't actively trying (except by non-participation) to change the laws, cultures, or conditions that put women at a disadvantage. The ones who are feminists, OTOH, are the ones who, in accordance with their strategy and in their context, are trying to enact change.

In this way, being a decent person doesn't qualify or disqualify you as a feminist, just as being a screechy asshole doesn't qualify or disqualify you as a feminist - it's all about whether or not you are participating in the movement. I'll admit - my definition excludes a lot of people who call themselves feminist, and it includes a few people who wouldn't call themselves feminist - but still there's something about this definition that seems so much more, I don't know, useful, than saying 'you either believe women are people or you don't.'


*To take a slightly extreme example, I'm sure many Saudis would be adamant in saying that they believe women are people, it's just that they don't believe all people should drive cars. Such as, for example, women and children.

This was better than the "Make Safe Happen" super bowl commercial that was basically saying that if you love your children you will buy insurance from Nationwide. That commercial showed a kid who died because of an unsafe situation. Not sure exactly what insurance would have done to help there.

This one was much better. If you love your kids you should purchase insurance to guarantee stability for their upbringing.

* Generalized comment about helicopter parents and parenting in general and how it is detrimental to a childs upbringing. *

Although this woman was authentically traumatized by the experience of living outside her box, I kind of feel sorry for her. Sorry she is so close minded to living and learning. Sorry she has been brainwashed to the extent that she can't function beyond her religious upbringing. and I feel bad for all those who have to endure her and her beliefs. Her convictions will go on to traumatize her children, and her children's children, and so many more generations to come.

Her physiologic internal belief system will control her until the day she dies, and she will never see any of it from within her bubble. Such a waste of human potential. She obviously has potential for strong convictions, and deep emotion that, I'm sure, could have been put to use in more productive ways in her life.

Little known fact but Asimov was cloned on the day of his death, and his clone is now 22 years old. The Asimov foundation payed to recreate (with pretty fair integrity) his entire upbringing, location by location and school by school. Just like his predecessor, the new Isaac is finishing his degree in chemistry over the next three years and is taking an interest to writing.